MU,^. . 


e/vj     ^JC 


UCSB   LIBRARY 


MEMOIR 


OF     THE 


Rev.  WALTER  BALFOUR, 


AUTHOR  OF  LETTERS  TO  PROF.  STUART, 


AND  VARIOUS  OTHER  PUBLICATIONS. 


By  THOMAS    WHITTEMORE. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY    J.    M.    USHER, 

No.   37  Cornhill, 

1852. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852,  by 
JAMES    M .    USHER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District 
of  Massachusetts. 


PREFACE. 


I  have  been  induced  to  prepare  the  Memoir  of 
Kev.  Walter  Balfour,  by  the  solicitations  of  sev- 
eral of  my  ministering  brethren.  I  had  known 
him,  ever  after  his  arrival  in  this  country.  He 
took  lip  his  residence  amid  the  scenes  of  my 
youth  ;  and  it  was  permitted  me  to  see  every 
step  of  his  progress. 

The  predominant  moral  qualities  of  Mr.  Bal- 
four were  honesty,  love  of  Scripture  truth,  a  fear- 
less spirit  of  inquiry,  and  independence  to  assert 
and  defend  what  he  believed.  His  knowledjje 
of  the  Scriptures  was  extensive  ;  and  the  works 
he  produced,  although  not  all  regarded  by  the 

writer  as  faultless,  were  very  valuable,  and  have 
1^ 


4  PREFACE. 

exerted,  and  will  continue  to  exert,  a  wide  influ- 
ence on  the  community.  Such  men  as  Walter 
Balfour  continue  to  live  on  the  earth  after  they 
are  dead.  It  was  said  of  Abel,  "  being  dead, 
yet  he  speaketh,"  Heb.  xi.  4.  So  we  may  say 
of  the  subject  of  this  memoir.  The  influence  of 
his  life  will  be  long  felt.  The  truth  that  radia- 
ted from  him  will  be  reflected  from  mind  to  mind; 
and  many  perhaps  will  be  enlightened  by  it,  who 
may  not  be  conscious  of  ever  having  heard  his 
name.  To  assist  in  giving  the  proper  influence 
to  his  life  and  character,  the  following  work  has 
been  prepared.  May  the  divine  blessing  attend 
it.  .        T.   ^r^ 


MEMOIR 

OF 

REV.  WALTER  BALFOUR, 


The  name  Balfour  has  been  a  name  of  Tb«  name 
some  eminence  in  Scotland.  The  fam- 
ily of  Balfour,  long-  heritable  sheriifs  of  Fife,  de- 
rive their  name  from  Balfour  Castle  in  that 
county,  built  upon  their  earliest  possessions  in 
the  vale  or  strath  of  the  river  Or,  a  tributary  of 
the  river  Leven.  Their  first  recorded  ancestor 
was  Siward,  probably  a  Northumbrian,  living  in 
the  reign  of  Duncan  I.  His  grandson,  Octred, 
witnessed  a  charter  of  David  1.  about  1151-2. 
Sir  James  Balfour  was  deputy  Governor  of  the 
castle  of  Edinburg,  in  the  time  of  Mary,  Queen 
of  Scots  ;  and  when  that  castle  was  besieged  by 
the  associated  lords,  he  delivered  up  the  jewels 
and  the  private  correspondence  of  the  queen,  to 


6  MEMOIR    OF 

the  messenger  sent  to  receive  them.  A  person 
of  the  name  of  Balfour  was  lieutenant  of  the 
Tower  of  London,  during  the  reign  of  Charles  I. 
The  famous  Earl  of  Strafibrd,  who  was  a  pris- 
oner there,  under  sentence  of  death  for  high  trea- 
son," offered  Lieut.  B.  £22,000,  the  king's  war- 
rant of  indemnity,  and  other  gifts,  for  his  escape, 
which  was  refused.  We  have  not  the  means 
of  tracing  the  pedigree  of  the  subject  of  this  me- 
moir. 

Birth  and  Youth  He  was  bom  at  St.  Ninians,  not 
*"''' far  from  the  year  1776.  This  is  one 
of  the  small  towns  of  Scotland,  and  is  situated 
in  Stirlingshire,  a  few  miles  south  of  Stirling, 
about  forty  miles  north  west  of  Edinburg,  and 
nearly  as  far  N.  E.  of  Glasgow.  Here  he  passed 
the  term  of  his  youth.  He  was  fully  initiated 
into  the  religious  creed  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
during  his  childhood  and  youth ;  and  early  re- 
ceived strong  religious  impressions  under  the 
preaching  of  Rev.  William  Sheriff,  then  Minis- 
ter of  St.  Ninians.  From  his  earliest  years 
young  Balfour  had  a  strong  love  for  reading. 
From  this  source  of  information,  and  from  a 
habitual  perusal  of  the  Scriptures,  he  was  led  to 
doubt  the  correctness  of  some  of  his  religious  im- 
pressions   and    opinions.      He    always   was    an 


REV.    WALTER   BALFOUR.  7 

honest  inquirer  after  truth.  He  felt  the  impulse 
of  this  generous  attribute  of  his  nature,  very- 
early  in  life.  His  doubts  related  to  the  general 
aspect  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  established 
by  law — her  government^ — rather  than  the  doc- 
trines of  her  creed.  He  was  in  no  small  degree 
weaned  from  his  mother  church,  by  reading  some 
of  the  ablest  works  on  church  government.  Be- 
sides, a  weekly  meeting  was  held  in  the  village 
— by  a  select  number  of  about  twelve  or  fifteen — 
for  prayer  and  conversation  on  the  Scriptures. 
Each  member  took  his  turn  in  prayer,  and  made 
such  remarks  on  the  portion  of  Scripture  read  as 
seemed  correct  and  pertinent.  One  of  Mr. 
Sheriff's  deacons  was  of  this  number,  and  Mr. 
S.  himself  frequently  attended. 

While  these  thinjrs  were  ffrad-  isadiuittedamem- 

°  ^  tercf:-Ir   Hal- 

ually  infusing  a  little  light  into  the  ^^^^^s  scuooi. 
mind  of  young  Balfour,  Mr.  Robert  Haldane — a 
rich  gentleman  in  the  neighborhood — determined 
to  devote  a  large  share  of  his  fortune  in  diffusing 
a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  in  Scotland  and  other 
places.  To  accomplish  this  benevolent  design, 
he  selected  twenty-five  persons  with  a  view  to 
educate  them  for  the  ministry.  The  deacon,  re- 
ferred to  above,  and  Mr.  Balfour  made  two  of 
this  number.     Some  of  our  readers  may  have 


8  MEMOIR    OF 

some  knowledge  of  the  thorough  course  of  theo- 
logical education  pursued  in  Mr.  Flaldane's 
school,  and  of  this  gentleman's  exertions  to  spread 
the  Gospel  in  Scotland,  on  the  continent,  and  in 
other  places.  It  was  in  this  school  that  Mr.  Bal- 
four was  prepared  for  the  studies  which  he  pur- 
sued in  after  life.  He  paid  particular  attention 
to  Hebrew  and  Greek,  as  being  the  languages  in 
which  the  Sacred  Scriptures  were  originally 
written.  He  foresaw  not  the  consequences  to 
which  this  preparation  would  ultimately  lead 
him.  He  had  strong  confidence  in  the  doctrines 
which  he  then  professed  ;  he  believed  them  with 
all  his  heart ;  it  was  his  desire  to  consecrate  his 
life  to  the  promulgation  of  them.  The  more  he 
might  learn  of  Sacred  Literature,  the  more  firm- 
ly, as  he  supposed,  should  he  cherish  those  doc- 
trines, and  the  more  capable  should  he  be  of 
maintaining  them.  He  therefore  gave  himself 
to  his  studies  with  unabating  ardor ;  resolving  to 
prepare  himself  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
greatest  good  of  which  he  was  capable. 
Becomes  a  After  pursulng  the  course  of  studies 
Scotland,  described,  Mr.  Balfour  commenced  to 
preach,  in  his  native  country.  This  occupation 
he  pursued  for  a  few  years,  before  he  resolved  to 
emigrate  to  America.     He  had  several  invita- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  \f 

tions  to  settle  as  a  pastor,  but  these  he  declined, 
believing  he  could  make  himself  more  useful  as 
an  itinerant  or  missionary.  We  do  not  wonder 
at  all  at  his  resolution.  The  pastor's  life  was 
not  suited  to  his  taste.  He  did  not  love  restric- 
tion nor  confinement.  He  had  a  strong  sense 
of  individuality.  He  had  not  a  desire  to  be  re- 
strained to  a  small  Parish.  His  spirit  was  pecu- 
liarly a  missionary  spirit.  If  it  involved  the  sa- 
crifice of  ease,  and  of  the  comforts  of  home, 
more  than  a  pastor's  life,  he  was  ready  to  make 
it.  If  a  missionary,  he  should  be  free.  He 
could  preach  without  the  slightest  restraint,  what 
he  esteemed  to  be  the  doctrines  of  the  word  of 
God  ;  and  if  the  people  refused  to  hear,  he  could 
shake  the  dust  from  his  feet,  and  go  and  preach 
to  others.  He  was  in  early  life,  a  great  reader 
of  the  Scriptures.  All  the  history  of  the  sacred 
books,  all  the  devotional  parts,  all  the  prophecies, 
the  life  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  the  labors,  trav- 
els, sacrifices  and  sufferings  of  the  apostles,  were 
all  vivid  and  familiar  scenes  hung  up  in  the  cham- 
bers of  his  memory.  Nothing  would  have  been 
more  natural  to  him,  than  the  desire  to  imitate 
the  apostles,  not  only  in  the  doctrines  they  preach- 
ed, but  also  in  the  manner  of  their  lives.  The 
missionary  spirit,  therefore,  burned  within  him. 


10 


MEMOIR    OF 


Eesoivesto  emigrate  From  reading  he  had  conceiv- 
merica.  gd  a  stroiig  piedilection  fof  Amef- 
ica,  which  was  in  no  degree  diminished  by  his 
further  advance  in  life,  and  progress  in  knowl- 
edge. Being  fixed  in  his  purpose  to  cross  the 
ocean  and  settle  in  the  new  world,  he  sought  to 
avail  himself  of  certain  advantages  which  he 
could  find  in  his  native  land,  but  which  would 
not  be  so  easily  attainable  in  America.  We  refer 
to  his  attendance  on  the  course  of  theological 
lectures  in  Edinburg.  He  accordingly  resided  a 
year  in  that  city,  and  attended  the  lectures  of 
the  University.  And  it  was  there  that  he  became 
acquainted  with  a  young  American  by  the  name 
of  Codman,  afterwards  settled  as  the  pastor  of  a 
congregation  at  Dorchester,  Mass.  They  became 
mutually  attached ;  and  sailed  together  from 
Leith  to  London.  Mr.  Balfour  did  not  remain 
long,  however,  in  the  great  metropolis  of  the 
British  empire  ;  but  sailed  for  Halifax,  Nova 
Scotia,  A.  D.  1S06.  Here  he  tarried  but  a 
short  time  ;  it  was  not  to  be  the  place  of  his  la- 
bors. After  spending  the  winter  in  the  province, 
he  came  to  the  United  States.  He  probably  had 
letters  of  introduction  to  Dr.  Jedediah  Morse,  of 
Charlestown,  who  was,  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Bal- 
four's arrival,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  or- 
thodox clergy  of  New  England. 


REV.    "WALTER     BALFOUR.  11 

Mr.  Balfoui's  mind  was  ac-  na  not  remain  with  hia 

.  ,  11'  ^Tst  associates, 

tive.  As  we  have  already  in- 
timated, he  was  stimulated  by  his  ardent  love  of 
truth,  to  seek  continually  for  it.  That  he  was 
strongly  attached  to  his  opinions,  we  do  not  deny  ; 
but  he  reverenced  them,  not  because  they  were 
his  opinions, — not  from  any  feelings  of  self-im- 
portance ;  but  because  he  believed  them  to  be 
founded  in  truth.  While  he  was  decided  in  the 
statement  of  his  opinions,  and  was  wedded  to 
them,  for  the  reasons  we  have  stated, — his  mind 
was  open  to  every  new  ray  of  light.  His  senti- 
ment was,  "  Prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good."     He  prayed,  with  the  poet, 

"  If  I  am  right,  thy  gra«e  impart, 
Still  in  the  riglit  to  stay  ; 
If  I  am  wrong,  O  teach  my  heart. 
To  find  the  better  way." 

Few  persons  will  be  able  to  estimate  how 
strongly  such  feelings  swayed  Mr.  Balfour.  He 
would  not,  if  he  knew  it,  harbor  an  error  in  his 
mind,  any  more  than  he  would  sin  in  his  heart. 
It  could  not  be  possible  that  such  a  man  would 
remain,  for  any  length  of  time,  trammelled  by  a 
creed.  We  are  to  expect,  that  he  will  not  remain 
long  in  intimate  connexion  with  his  first  Amer- 
ican associates.     Let  it  not  be  thoudit  that  he 


12  MEMOIR    OF 

was  a  man  of  fluctuating  mind  ;  far  from  it.  He 
had  not  the  element  of  change.  Having  adopt- 
ed his  opinions  in  honesty,  he  supposed  them 
correct ;  and  his  honesty  and  natural  inflexibili- 
ty would  have  made  him  invulnerable  to  change, 
had  it  not  been  that  he  bowed,  with  a  deep  rev- 
erence, before  the  majesty  of  truth.  He  was  de- 
termined to  follow  the  light  of  truth  wherever  it 
led  him.  He  would  sacrifice  nothing  to  his  creed, 
as  such  ;  but  all  to  conscience.  Now  what  could 
be  expected  of  such  a  man  ?  Would  he  conform 
to  others  for  mere  benevolence  ?  for  the  sake  of 
a  welcome  at  their  fire-sides  or  their  tables  ?  In- 
deed, he  would  not.  He  would  give  them  the 
last  dollar  to  aid  thenn  in  relieviag  the  distresses 
of  mankind;  but  he  would  adopt  no  new  doc- 
trine, or  continue  to  support  an  old  one,  for  the 
sake  of  all  the  smiles  and  favors  that  men  might 
see  fit  to  bestow  upon  him. 

Takes  up  his  abode  Mr.  Balfour,  as  we  have  said, 
came  into  the  country  with  letters 
of  introduction  to  Dr.  Morse,  of  Charlestovvn, 
written  perhaps  by  Mr.  Codman,  with  whom  he 
had  sailed  from  Leith  to  London.  He  was  re- 
ceived with  much  cordiality  by  the  Doctor.  That 
eminent  divine  exercised  a  great  influence  in 
New  England.     He  was,  in  fact,  the  leader  of 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  13 

the  orthodox  party,  who  were  then  beginning 
to  draw  off  from  associates,  whom  they  sus- 
pected of  Unitarianism.  He  was  a  man  of  great 
blandness  ;  dignified  ;  of  considerable  learning  ; 
a  very  good  writer ;  but  he  did  not  shine  in  the 
pulpit,  except  when  he  sung.  His  voice  was  a 
beautiful  alto ;  and  when  he  joined  in  the  mu- 
sical part  of  the  exercises,  as  he  usually  did,  if 
acquainted  with  the  tune,  he  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  all.  He  loved  to  have  help  in  the  public 
services  from  any  competent  brother  who  might 
come  along.  In  those  days  the  members  of  the 
church  used  to  hold  vestry  meetings,  in  the  neat 
little  chapel,  that  stood  in  the  parish  garden,  on 
the  southern  slope  of  the  town  hill.  The  Doctor, 
who  was  not  used  to  extempore  speaking,  was 
always  happy  to  receive  any  ministering  brother, 
who  had  the  talent  to  make  these  meetings  in- 
teresting. Mr.  Balfour,  especially  when  a  young 
man,  excelled  in  that  respect.  He  had  been  a 
diligent  student  of  the  Scriptures,  and  had  always 
practiced  preaching  without  notes.  When  he 
entered  the  Doctor's  pulpit,  therefore,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  conference  meeting,  he  excited  great 
attention.  He  became  acquainted,  at  once,  with- 
out putting  himself  forward  in  the  least,  with  all 
the  principal  members  of  the  Doctor's  church  and 


14  MEMOIR    OF 

congregation.  He  was  spoken  of  as  a  man  of 
great  learning,  who  had  the  Scriptures  almost 
wholly  committed  to  memory,  and  who  had  the 
power  to  preach,  without  writing  his  sermons, 
and  apparently  without  taking  thought  what 
he  should  say,  as  it  seemed  to  be  given  him  in 
that  very  hour.  It  was  thought  that  God  had 
brought  him  to  this  country,  for  a  great  purpose, 
and  that  he  would  be  instrumental  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  a  high  degree  of  good.  He  visited 
the  first  families  in  the  town  ;  and  took  up  his 
abode  for  the  time  in  that  of  deacon  Warren,  a 
worthy  and  respected  citizen.  But  his  labors 
were  not  confined  to  Charlestown.  He  was  in- 
vited to  the  pulpits  of  the  orthodox  clergymen, 
through  all  the  surrounding  region.  He  preach- 
ed without  compensation,  except  such  as  was 
bestowed  by  the  free  will  of  the  people  ;  for  he 
had  serious  doubts,  at  this  time,  whether  it  was 
proper  and  right  for  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  to 
receive  a  stipulated  price  for  his  labors.  He  ab- 
horred every  thing  that  partook  of  the  nature  of 
a  bargain  in  respect  to  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel ;  and  he  trusted  that  the  Lord  would  pro- 
vide for  him. 

His  marria-e.       In  the  coursc  of  his  visits  among 
the  members  of  the  Doctor's  church,  he  became 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  15 

acquainted  with  the  amiable  lady,  who  was  soon 
to  be  united  to  him  in  marriage.  This  was  Miss 
Mary  Devens,  a  grand  daughter  of  the  well  known 
Commissary  Devens,  (as  he  was  universally  call- 
ed,) one  of  the  most  wealthy  and  respected  citi- 
zens of  the  town  in  his  day.  Mr.  Balfour  was  a 
welcome  visiter  at  the  house  of  that  amiable  and 
good  man,  deacon  Thomas  Miller,  who  had 
married  the  mother  of  Miss  Devens.  His  ac- 
quaintance with  Miss  Devens  soon  ripened  into 
that  mutual  respect  and  love,  which  ever  after- 
wards made  their  union  happy.  They  were  uni- 
ted in  marriage,  by  the  Rev.  William  Collier,  the 
Baptist  clergyman  of  Charlestown,  on  Dec.  4th, 
1809.  Mr.  Collier  was  a  man  universally  re- 
spected for  his  benevolence,  integrity  and  piety, 
although  his  pulpit  talents  were  not  of  a  high 
order.  Whether  he  was  chosen  to  officiate  at 
the  marriage  of  Mr.  Balfour  because  Dr.  Morse 
was  at  the  time  absent  from  town,  the  writer  has 
not  troubled  himself  to  inquire.  Perhaps,  thus 
early,  the  Doctor  had  discovered  that  Mr.  Bal- 
four was  no  suple  instrument  to  be  used  for  other 
men's  benefit ;  but  that  he  had  an  independent 
mind ;  an  honest  conscience,  that  was  true  to  the 
convictions  of  his  own  understanding  ;  and  that 
he  was  not  to  be  fettered  by  any  forms  of  faith 


16 


MEMOIR    OF 


drawn  up  by  other  men.  The  family  with  which 
Mr.  Balfour  had  thus  connected  himself,  was  one 
of  the  most  respectable  families  in  the  town. 
She  survives  him.  Her  relatives,  persons  of  high 
discernment  and  respectability,  entertain  a  pro- 
found respect  for  his  memory.  He  corresponded 
to  their  ideas  of  a  truly  good  and  honest  man. 
His  habits  of  inquiry  But  let  US  rotum  to  the  early  life 
the  csivmists,  of  Mr.  Balfour  in  Charlestown. 
We  have  already  intimated,  that  a  person  of  his 
honesty  and  independence,  and  unceasing  spirit 
of  inquiry,  could  not  remain  fettered  by  any 
creed.  What  he  believed  he  avowed ;  and  al- 
though he  continued  to  hold,  without  any  doubt, 
the  doctrine  of  the  endless  misery  of  the  wicked  ; 
although  the  suspicion  had  never  once  crossed 
his  mind  that  the  doctrine  of  the  final  holiness 
and  happiness  of  all  men  might  be  true,  yet  there 
were  points  on  which  he  differed  from  Dr.  Morse 
and  the  majority  of  his  church.  This  state  of 
things  broke  up  the  intimacy  that  had  existed 
between  them  ;  and  Mr.  Balfour  could  no  longer 
be  admitted  into  the  Doctor's  pulpit.  Such  was 
the  Doctor's  influence  and  wide  acquaintance 
with  the  orthodox  clergy  of  the  vicinity,  that  the 
feelings  cherished  by  him  would  soon  become 
general,  and   Mr.  Balfour,  having  a  spirit  that 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  17 

would  disdain  to  plead  or  sue  for  any  favors, 
would  follow  what  he  regarded  as  the  path  of 
duty,  even  if  it  cost  him  the  regard  of  those 
who  had  professed  to  be  his  dearest  friends.  Al- 
though he  went  no  more  into  the  pulpit  of  Dr. 
Morse,  yet  still  he  had  friends, — christians, — 
who  were  ready  to  follow  him,  and  bear  reproach 
and  opposition,  if  need  be,  for  conscience  sake. 
A  hall  was  obtained  and  these  friends  clustered 
around  him.  They  held  meetings  regularly  upon 
the  Sabbath  day,  for  years.  He  preached  with- 
out pecuniary  compensation,  supporting  himself 
by  opening  a  store,  for  a  very  respectable  branch 
of  mercantile  business  upon  the  main  street  in 
Charlestown.  But  he  never  for  a  day  abandon- 
ed his  theological  studies.  Books  were  his  com- 
panions. At  his  place  of  business,  when  no  one 
was  present,  he  was  almost  invariably  engaged 
in  reading  or  writing ;  and  at  home,  especially 
in  the  long  winter  evenings,  he  maintained  the 
same  habits.  He  never  for  an  hour,  lost  his  in- 
terest in  the  great  subject  of  moral  and  religious- 
truth.  He  was  a  constant  inquirer,  albeit  at  tlie 
same  time  he  was  a  teacher.  What  he  had 
learned,  he  was  willing  to  teach  others ,  but  he 
felt  that  he  should  always  be  a  learner  himself.. 
The  fountain  dispenses  streams  to  fertilize  the 
2 


18  MEMOIR   OF 

surrounding  region  ;  but  this  it  would  not  do  ex-, 
cept  its  own  bosom  were  filled  by  the  rains  from 
heaven. 

Is  baptized.  In  the  course  of  his  inquiries,  Mr. 
Balfour  had  his  attention  turned  to  the  subject  of 
adult  baptism,  and  to  the  proper  form  thereof. 
He  reflected  deeply  upon  this  subject,  and  sought 
to  learn  what  were  the  opinions  and  what  was 
the  practice  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  in  the 
apostolic  day,  touching  this  matter.  The  resulfr 
in  his  own  mind  was,  that  he  believed  baptism 
by  immersion  to  be  the  proper  form.  He  con- 
ferred not  with  flesh  and  blood ;  but  proposed 
himself,  as  a  candidate  for  baptism  to  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Collier,  of  whom  we  have  before  spoken  ; 
and  upon  a  beautiful  Sabbath  morning,  he  was 
immersed  in  the  arm  of  the  sea  that  bathes  the 
base  of  the  gentle  declivity,  where  the  ancient 
dead  of  the  town  were  laid.  His  views  on  the 
subject  of  baptism  were  never  afterwards  chang- 
ed, in  fact,  he  seldom  found  reason  to  change 
his  mind  in  regard  to  any  subject,  on  which  his 
opinion  had  been  deliberately  formed.  The 
changes  of  his  mind  affected  those  doctrines  only 
into  which  he  had  been  initiated  in  his  childhood. 
Pr«.che8  at  Ho  Is  now  to  bo  contemplated 

■Wa&Uingion  Hall.       .  •  r  .  ,         i 

for  a  series  of  ten  or  twelve  years, 


REV.    WALTER     BALEOUR.  19 

as  the  preacher  to  a  small,  but  very  respectable 
congregation,  at  Washington  Hall,  in  Charles- 
town.     These  were  principally  persons  living  in 
Boston  and  Charlestown,  who  were  attached  to 
him  for  his  piety,  his  sound  scriptural  discourses, 
as  they  regarded  them,  and  for  the  honesty,  in- 
tegrity and  noble  christian  independence  of  the 
man.     He  had  no  compensation,  except  a  few 
slight  gifts  from  the  people  ;  yet  he  faithfully  la- 
bored for  their  good.     He  prepared  two  sermons 
for  each  Sabbath  day,  with  the  same  regularity 
and  faithfulness   that  he  would  have  observed, 
had  he  been  the  pastor  of  a  congregation  that 
furnished  him  a  living.     Those  who  heard  him 
were   always    interested.     His    discourses  were 
marked  with    sound  sense,  and   abounded  with 
scriptural  knowledge.     In  the  meantime,  in  or- 
der to  support  himself,  he  continued  the  store  in 
Charlestown,  and  for  the  principal  part   of  the 
time  without  any  one  to  assist  him.     He  was 
salesman  and  clerk  himself;  he  was  proverbially 
honest;  what  he  said,  his   customers  believed; 
but  the  predominating  passion  with  him  was  not 
a  love  of  worldly  business,  but  a  love  of  theolog- 
ical studies.     As  the  atmosphere  was  the  element 
in  which  his  body  lived,  so  theological  study  was 
the  element  of  his  soul. 


•       CHAP.  II. 

THE    ANDOVER   INSTITUTION  AND  PROF.    STUART. 

A  digression.       Wg  iiiust  dlgress  foF  a  short  time 

from  Mr.  Balfour  to  give  a  brief  account  of  the 

Andover    Institution    and   of  Professor  Moses 

Stuart. 

The  Andover       This  InstitutioH  grew  up  in  corise- 

Institiition.  .  -,  ^_     .  . 

quence  or  Harvard  University  havmg 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Unitarians.  The 
Unitarian  influence  had  been  secretly  increasing 
in  Massachusetts,  especially  in  the  vicinity  of 
Boston ;  but  no  public  demonstration  was  made 
in  favor  of  the  principles  of  that  sect,  until  the 
fact  was  made  clear,  that  the  government  of  the 
University  had  become  decidedly  Unitarian.  This 
point  was  settled  by  the  election  of  Dr.  Henry 
Ware,  as  HoUis  Professor  of  Divinity.  Dr.  Ware 
was  not  a  Calvinist.  He  did  not  make  a  clear 
definition  of  his  faith  on  the  points  in  controversy 
between  the  two  great  parties  that  were  manoeu- 
vring for  mastery  in  the  University ;  but  it  was 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  21 

well  understood  that  he  was  a  Unitarian.  A  late 
writer  in  one  of  the  public  papers  in  Charles- 
town,  whom  we  do  not  hesitate  to  describe  as  an 
eminent  physician  there, — a  native  of  the  town, — 
who  has  made  it  his  residence  for  the  whole  term 
of  his  life,  now  about  seventy  years,. has  spoken 
of  the  rise  of  the  Andover  Institution  as  follows  : 
"  It  will  be  remembeTed,  that  the  foundinfr  of  Har- 
vard College  "  for  Christ  and  the  Church"'  was  among 
the  earliest  and  most  cherished  objects  of  the  Fathers 
of  New  England.  Many  now  living  know  how  and 
when  the  College  passed  out  of  the  control  of  Ortho- 
doxy into  the  hands  of  Unitarians — not  without  a  se- 
vere struggle — the  din  of  that  fierce  controversy  is  still 
ringing  in  our  ears — the  Charlestown  folks,  especially, 
were  in  the  hottest  of  it.  It  is  but  justice  to  say,  that 
the  champions  of  Calvinism  fought  nobly,  but  the  bat- 
tle ended,  (as  all  such  battles  always  will  end,  either 
in  religion  or  politics,)  in  the  triumph  of  liberal  opin- 
ions. But  the  discomfitted  party  were  not  men  to  sit 
down  quietly  undei  such  defeat.  They  girded  them- 
Eelves  with  new  zeal,  mustered  their  forces  of  talent 
and  wealth,  (and  these  were  great  and  povverful,)  and 
planted  their  standard  and  flung  it  to  the  breeze  on 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  heights  of  New  Enjiland. 
It  will  not  for  a  moment  be  denied  that  the  Andover 
Institution  was  begotten  and  born  out  of  the  contro- 
versy about  Harvard  College.  Ii  is  bare  justice  to  say 
that  among  all  the  truly  distinguished  men  who  have 
filled  and  adorned  the  offices  of  this  Institution,  no  one 
has  attained  the  high  fame  of  Professor  Stuart.  The 
Andover  Institution,  expressly  set  up  as  the  defence 
and  support  of  Orthodoxy  or  Partialism,  officially  made 
Prof.  Stuart,  and  in  the  wonderful  providence  of  God, 
Prof.  Stuart  made  Mr.  Balfour  a  Universalist ;  and 


22  MEMOIR    OF 

without  any  disparagement  of  the  extraordinary  talent 
of  Prof.  Stuart,  it  ia  saie  to  say  that  where  he  has 
reached  and  influenced  one  human  mind,  Mr.  Balfour 
•has  aroused  thousands  ;  because  the  critical  labors  of 
the  learned  Professor  are  suited  only  to  the  capacity 
of  a  few  select  minds,  while  the  labors  of  Mr.  Balfour 
operate  directly  on  the  mass  of  common  minds.  What 
shall  we  say  then  to  these  things'?  For  my  own  part 
when  I  consider  the  reflex  operations  of  Divine  Prov- 
idence, as  manifested  in  all  the  great  questions  which 
afl^ect  humanity,  1  am  more  and  more  constrained  to 
cast  myself  humbly  down  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  to 
exclaim  with  the  good  Apostle,  '^  O  the  depth  of  the 
riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  ; 
how  unsearchable  are  his  judgements  and  his  ways 
past  finding  out — for  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the 
Lord,  and  who  hath  been  his  counsellor,  or  who  hath 
given  to  him,  and  it  shall  be  recompensed  to  him 
again.  For  of  him  and  through  him  and  to  him  are 
all  things — to  whom  be  glory  foiever.     Amen  !"  " 

The  Creed  of  the  Sucli  weFG  the  cifcumstances  un- 
der which  the  Andover  Institution 
was  founded.  Among- the  first  cares  of  its  found- 
ers, was  the  preparation  of  a  Creed  to  which 
every  persoft  who  shall  accept  a  professorship  in 
the  Institution  must  give  his  public  assent.  To 
show  how  exclusively  this  Institution  is  devoted 
to  orthodoxy,  so  called,  and  how  carefully  every 
change  in  this  respect  is  sought  to  be  prevented 
forever,  a  few  extracts  shall  here  be  made  from 
the  statutes  of  the  Institution. 

"  Every  Professor  shall  be  «n  orthodox  and  consist- 
ent Calvinist ;"  and  after  a  careful  examination  by  the 


REV.    WALTER    FBAFOUR.  23 

visitors  with  reference  to  his  religious  principles,  he 
shall,  on  the  day  of  inauguration,  publicly  make  and 
Subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  faith  in  Divine 
Revelation,  and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as  expressed  in  the  following 
Creed,  which  is  supported  by  the  infallible  Revelation 
which  God  constantly  makes  of  himself  in  his  works 
of  creation,  providence,  and  redemption,  namely  : — 

CREED    OF    THE    INSTITUTION. 

"I  believe  that  there  is  one  and  but  one  living  and 
true  God  ;  that  the  word  of  God,  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  that  agreeably  to 
those  Scriptures  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal  and 
unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness, 
justice,  goodness  and  truth;  that  in  the  Godhead  are 
three  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost; 
and  that  thes3  three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  sub- 
stance, equal  in  power  and  glory  ;  that  God  created 
man  after  his  own  image  in  knowledge,  righteousness 
and  holiness  ;  that  the  glory  of  God  is  man's  chief 
end,  and  the  enjoyment  of  God  is  supreme  happiness  ; 
that  this  enjoyment  is  derived  solely  from  conformity 
of  heart  to  the  moral  character  and  will  of  God  ;  that 
Adam,  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  hu- 
man race,  was  placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  that' 
in  consequence  of  his  disobedience  all  his  descendants 
were  constituted  sinners  ;  that  by  nature  every  man  ia 
personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike  and 
opposed  to  God,  and  that  previously  to  the  renewing 
agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  all  his  moral  actions  are 
adverse  to  the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  that  be- 
ing morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his 
Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly 
exposed  to  eternal  damnation  ;  so  that,  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
that  God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity, 


24  MEMOIR  OF 

elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  that  he  entered 
into  a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  this 
state  of  sin  and  misery,  by  a  Redeemer;  that  the  only 
Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who 
for  this  purpose  became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God 
and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forev- 
er ;  that  Christ  as  our  Redeemer  executes  the  office  of 
a  Prophet,  Priest  and  King ;  that,  agreeably  to  the 
covenant  of  Redemption,  tlie  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone, 
by  his  suffering  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  all  men  ;  that  repentance,  faith  and  holi- 
ness, are  the  personal  requisites  in  the  gospel  schfeme 
of  salvation  ;  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the 
only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justification  ;  that  this  right- 
eousness is  received  through  faith  ;  and  that  this  faith 
is  the  gift  of  God  ;  so  tliat  our  salvation  is  wholly  of 
grace  ;  that  no  means  whatever  can  change  the  heart 
<if  a  sinner,  and  make  it  holy  ;  that  regeneration  and 
sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating  and  renewing 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  supreme  love  to 
God  constitutes  the  essential  difference  between  saints 
and  sinners  ;  that  by  convincing  us  of  our  sin  and  mis- 
ery, enHghtening  our  minds,  working  faitii  in  ns,  and 
renewing  our  wills,  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  us  partak- 
ers of  the  benefits  of  redemption  ;  and  that  the  ordina- 
ry means  by  which  these  benefits  are  communicated 
to  us,  ?re  the  word,  sacrament,  and  prayer  ;  that  re- 
pentance unto  lite,  faith  to  feed  upon  Christ,  love  to 
God  and  new  obedience,  are  the  appropriate  qualifica- 
tions for  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  ar.d  that  a  Christian 
Church  ought  to  admit  no  person  to  its  holy  commun- 
ion, before  he  exhibits  credible  evidence  of  his  godly 
sincerity  ;  that  perseverance  in  holiness  is  the  only 
method  of  making  our  calling  and  election  sure  ;  and 
that  the  final  perseverance  of  the  saints,  though  it  is 
the  effect  of  the  especial  operation  of  God  on  their 
hearts,  necessarily  implies  their  own  watchful  dili- 
gence;    that  they,  who  are  effectually  called,  do  in 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  25 

this  life  partake  of  justification,  adoption  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  and  the  several  benefits  which  do  either  ac- 
company or  flow  from  them  ;  that  the  souls  of  believ- 
ers are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do 
ioimediately  pass  into  glory  ;  that  their  bodies  being 
still  united  to  Christ,  will  at  the  resurrection  be  raised 
up  to  glory,  and  that  the  saints  will  be  made  perfectly 
blessed  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  God  to  all  eternity ; 
but  that  the  wicked  will  awake  to  shame  and  eveilast- 
ing  contempt,  and  with  devils  be  plunged  into  the 
lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  forever  and 
ever.  I  moreover  believe  that  God,  according  to  the 
counsel  o;  his  own  will,  and  for  his  own  glory,  hath 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  that  all 
beings,  actions  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and 
moral  world,  are  under  his  providential  direction  ;  that 
God's  decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty  ; 
God's  universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man,  and 
man's  dependence  with  his  accountability  ;  that  man 
has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that 
God  requires  of  him  ;  so  that  nothing  but  the  sinner's 
aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation  ;  that  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and 
that  he  will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked  men 
and  devils  to  praise  him  ;  and  that  all  the  evil  which 
has  existed  and  which  will  forever  exist  in  the  moral 
system  will  eventually  be  made  to  promote  a  most  im- 
portant purpose  under  the  wise  and  perfect  adminis- 
tration of  that  Almighty  Being  ;  who  will  cause  all 
things  to  work  for  his  own  glory,  and  thus  fulfil  all  his 
pleasure.  And  furthermore  I  do  solemnly  promise  that 
I  will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils 
with  integrity  and  faithfulness  ;  that  I  will  maintain 
and  inculcate  the  Christian  Faith,  as  expressed  in  the 
Creed,  by  me  now  repeated,  together  with  all  the  other 
doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  religion,  so  far  as  may 
appertain  to  my  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me,  and  in  opposition  not  only  to  Atheists 


26  MEMOIR    OF 

and  Infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mahometans,  All- 
ans, Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians  and  Universal- 
ists,  and  to  all  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  or  modern, 
which  may  be  opposed  to  ihe  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  haz- 
ardous to  the  souls  of  men  ;  that  by  my  instruction, 
counsel  and  example,  I  will  endeavor  to  promote  true 
piety  and  godliness ;  that  I  will  consult  the  good  of 
this  Institution,  and  the  peace  of  the  Churches  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  all  occasions — and  that  I  will  re- 
ligiously conform  to  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  this 
Seminary,  and  to  the  Statutes  of  this  Foundation." 

"  The  preceding  Creed  and  Declaration  shall  be  re- 
peated by  every  Professor  on  this  Foundation  at  the  ex- 
piration of  every  successive  period  of  five  years,  and 
no  man  shall  be  continued  a  Professor  on  said  Founda- 
tion, who  shall  not  continue  to  approve  himself  a  man 
of  sound  and  orthodox  principles  in  divinity  according 
to  the  aforesaid  Creed." 

The  Creed  bars  out  Such  Is  the  cFeed  which  the 
ree  inquiry.  professoTs  at  AndoveT  must  sub- 
scribe at  their  inauguration,  and  which,  every 
fifth  year,  they  must  repeat  as  the  declaration 
of  their  faith. 

One  cannot  help  remarking  here,  that  free  in- 
quiry is  forever  barred  out  of  the  Institution. 
No  Professor  can  dissent  the  least  from  the  fore- 
going creed,  without  foifeiting  his  office  and  all 
its  emoluments.  He  must  therefore  henceforth 
sit  down  quietly  under  the  impression  that  he 
cannot  be  wrong,  or  else  expose  himself  to  the 
danger  already  described.  What  temptations 
then  are  placed  before  the  Professors,  not  to  make 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOTJR.  27 

them  desirous  to  discover  what  is  truths  but  to 
suppress  every  rising  inquiry,  to  maintain  a  blind 
devotion  to  a  creed  framed  by  men,  all  of  whom, 
in  a  few  years,  will  have  passed  away.  Is  it  not 
a  matter  of  astonishment  that  the  Professors 
would  receive  their  offices  on  such  conditions  ? 
The  creed  virtually  binds  them  to  study  the  Bible 
with  a  fixed  determination  to  believe  what  they 
now  profess,  and  nothing  opposed  to  it.  Setting 
all  the  future  at  defiance,  it  bids  them  close  their 
eyes  upon  every  ray  of  increasing  light,  and  up- 
on the  labors  of  every  ardent  lover  of  truth,  who 
shall  henceforth  rise  up,  so  far  as  he  shall  depart 
from  the  creed.  What  is  this  less  than  saying,  we 
know  we  are  right  ?  and  what  more  did  the  Pope 
at  Rome  ever  say  ?  Protestants  have  ridiculed 
the  Pope  because  he  lays  claim  to  infallibility ; 
wherein  does  this  differ  ?  If  those  who  framed 
this  creed,  and  those  who  have  signed  it,  admit- 
ted of  a  possibility  of  their  being  wrong,  it  was 
arrogant  presumption,  it  was  direct  hostility  to 
truth  in  them  to  place  it  upon  the  foundation  on 
which  it  stands,  and  in  the  most  solemn  manner 
to  bind  every  Professor  and  every  Visitor  to  be- 
lieve and  defend  it  henceforth  and  forever;  and 
if  they  did  not  admit  of  a  possibillity  of  being 
wrong,  they  laid  all  the  claim  to  infallibility 
which  the  Pope  ever  did. 


28  MEMOIR    OF 

The  Profe  sore '  Let  it  HO  loHgcr,  then,  be  a  matter 

inusttoe    governed  .      .       .          ,  •      ^  r 

by  the  Creed,  qi  wonder,  as  it  IS  in  the  minds  of 
some  persons,  that  the  Professors  at  Andover  op- 
pose doctrines  manifestly  reasonable  and  scrip- 
tural, and  make  war  on  all  the  sects  proscribed  in 
their  creed — they  have  promised  to  do  it ;  they 
have  pledged  their  veracity  (a  promise  and  a 
pledge  which  they  every  fifth  year  repeat) ;  they 
are  paid,  cash  in  hand,  for  doing  that  service. 
And  all  this  they  must  continue  to  do  so  long  as 
they  retain  the  Professorships  they  now  hold. 

The  founders  of  the  Professorships,  in  order 
effectually  to  guard  their  gifts,  in  all  future  time, 
against  all  perversion,  or  the  smallest  avoidance 
of  their  true  design,  constituted  a  Board  of  Vis- 
itors to  be,  as  in  their  place  and  stead,  the  Guar- 
dians, Overseers  and  Protectors,  of  these  founda- 
tions. These  Visitors,  previously  to  taking  their 
seats  at  the  Board,  must  solemly  declare,  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  the  Board  of  Trustees,  that 
they  will  faithfully  exert  their  abilities  to  carry 
into  execution  the  regulations  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Institution  ;  and,  like  the  Professors, 
they  are  required  "  to  subscribe  the  same  theo- 
logical creed,"  and  to  repeat  a  declaration  of  their 
faith  in  it  "  at  every  successive  period  of  five 
years."     These  Visitors  will,  of  course,  keep  a 


REV.    WALTER    BALPOUR.  29 

watchful  eye  upon  the  Professors,  and  see  that 
they  depart  not  in  any  way,  nor  in  the  smallest 
degree  from  the  creed  which  they  are  all  requir- 
ed to  subscribe.  And  they  have  power  to  remove 
the  Professors  '*  either  for  misbehavior,  hetero' 
doxy  J  incapacity,  or  neglect  of  the  duties  of  of- 
fice." 

The  Professors  at  Andover  are  not  to  be  blam- 
ed for  being  Calvinists,  or  Hopkinsians.  Far 
from  this.  But  they  are  to  be  blamed  for  accept- 
ing their  professorships  on  conditions,  which  ex- 
clude all  inquiry  as  it  respects  the  truth  of  their 
sentiments.  The  spirit  of  Christianity  is  opposed 
to  such  a  practice  ;  the  spirit  of  the  times  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  opposed  to  it ;  the  spirit 
of  our  government  and  institutions  generally  is 
opposed  to  it ;  and  the  time  must  speedily  come, 
(if  it  be  not  already  come,)  when  this,  and  kin- 
dred institutions,  if  there  be  such,  will  generally 
be  regarded  by  the  many  as  monuments  of  party 
zeal,  and  strong  sectarian  attachments. 

Professor  Stuart,  says  one  of   i^ev.  Moses  ntuart 

becomes 

his  friends,  "  was  born  at  Wilton,  Andover^SsmutU. 
Conn.,  in  March.  17S0 ;  was  graduated  at  Yale 
College  in  1799;  was  afterwards  tutor  for  two 
years  in  that  Institution ;  he  studied  law,  but 
abandoned  that  profession  for  that  of  the  minis- 


30  MEMOIR    OF 

try,  and  in  1806  was  ordained  Pastor  of  the  Cen- 
tre Church  in  New  Haven  ;  and  in  1810,  after  a 
pastorate  of  four  years,  was  transferred  to  the 
chair  of  Sacred  Literature  at  Andover,  which  he 
actively  filled  till  1848.  when  he  resigned." 
His  labors  at  '*  I"  January,  1810,  just  forty-two 
years  ago,"  says*  Prof.  Park  of  Andover, 
in  the  sermon  at  his  funeral,  "  he  was  inaugura- 
ted Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  this  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  His  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
then  enabled  him  to  translate  with  the  aid  of 
Parkhurst's  Lexicon,  only  five  or  six  chapters  of 
Genesis  and  a  few  Psalms.  His  acquaintance 
with  the  Greek  tongue  was  far  from  being  exten- 
sive. He  was  to  be  a  self-made  man.  In  about 
two  years  he  prepared  a  Hebrew  Grammar  with- 
out points,  for  the  immediate  use  of  his  pupils. 
They  were  obliged  to  copy  it  day  by  day  from 
liis  written  sheets.  In  the  third  year  he  publish- 
ed it  at  his  own  expense.  To  print  a  Hebrew 
Grammar  was  then  a  strange  work.  He  was 
compelled  to  set  up  the  types  for  about  half  the 
form  of  verbs  with  his  own  hands.  He  taught 
the  printers  their  art.  That  Grammar  he  after- 
wards enlarged  and  improved  in  successive  edi- 
tions, and  the  labor  which  he  has  expended  upon 
it  would  have  filled  up  the  life  of  an  ordinary 
man. 


,  REV.    TVALTER    BALFOUR.  31 

"  In  consulting  Schleusner's  Lexicon,  he  met 
here  and  there  a  German  word.  No  one  could 
explain  to  him  the  meaning  of  it.  His  curiosity 
was  aroused.  At  an  exorbitant  price  he  obtained 
the  apparatus  for  German  study,  and  in  a  single 
fortnight  had  read  the  entire  Gospel  of  St.  John 
in  that  language.  Self-taught,  he  persevered 
through  Lieber's  Biblish  Hermeneutik,  and  this 
work  introduced  him  to  the  wide  range  of  Ger- 
man literature.  He  felt  himself  in  a  new  world. 
It  was  that  one  volume  which,  through  the  gen- 
erosity of  the  Trustees  of  the  Institution,  enabled 
him  to  fill  our  library  with  the  richest  collection 
of  German  treatises  then  in  the  land.  For  ten 
years  he  performed  the  rugged  work  of  a  pioneer, 
and  in  his  maturer  life  he  often  said,  that  he  did 
not  know  how  to  begin  to  study  the  Bible  until 
he  was  forty  years  old.  For  forty  years  he  had 
been  in  the  wilderness.  He  entered  late  in  life 
upon  the  promised  possession.  Nor  w^as  he 
merely  alone  in  the  efforts  of  the  first  ten  years 
of  his  professorship.  To  have  been  simply  friend- 
less would  have  been  to  him  a  relief.  But  the 
suspicions  of  good  men  were  excited  with  regard 
to  the  result  of  his  German  study.  He  endured 
the  whisperings  of  his  brethren.  Many  of  them 
met  him  with  an  averted  face.     Dark  predictions 


82  MEMOIR   OF 

were  uttered  concerning  him;  but  he  kept  his 
eye  fixed  upon  the  distant  goal.  Morning  after 
morning,  he  sallied  forth  from  his  house  at  five 
o'clock,  through  rain,  hail,  snow,  storm  ;  and  as 
his  attenuated  figure  breasted  the  winds  of  our 
cold  winters,  it  seemed  a  type  of  his  spirit,  en- 
countering manfully  the  opposition,  not  of  foes 
only,  but  of  friends." 
profe.Bor  8t nartnota      Profcssor  Stuart's  learning  was 

profound  tliiiiker.  .  ,  , 

extensive,  but  somewhat  superfi- 
cial. He  had  studied  much,  but  he  had  not  con- 
centrated his  studies.  His  learning  therefore 
was  more  superficial  than  that  of  some  men.  He 
showed  the  world  all  the  learning  he  had.  He 
was  neither  a  sagacious  thinker,  nor  a  sound 
logician.  He  was  ambitious,  industrious,  untir- 
ing, but  not  acute  and  far-seeing.  Such  a  man 
would  be  in  the  foremost  rank  at  all  times  ;  but 
he  would  be  liable  to  make  many  mistakes.  One 
of  his  own  brethren  has  said  of  him,  since  his 
death,  "  The  deficiencies  of  Prof.  Stuart's  mind 
are  as  apparent  in  his  commentaries  as  any  where 
else.  His  want  of  that  faculty  of  rigorous  and 
exact  logic  which  some  possess,  led  him  to  hold 
principles  sometimes  in  a  rather  indeterminate 
and  shifting  way,  and  to  apply  them  with  a  vari- 
able and  uncertain  method  j  so  that  one  could 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  33 

not  always  be  sure  that  the  same  interpretation 
would  recur  a  year  afterwards  that  had  been  ur- 
gently maintained  a  year  before.  Timorous 
minds,  who  looked  for  rules  rather  than  princi- 
ples, and  wl^o  more  desired  precise  information 
on  special  points  than  general  stimulus  and  en- 
largement of  thought,  were  sometimes  repulsed 
from  the  Professor  by  this.  But  the  rare  and 
great  excellencies  of  his  m.ind  and  heart  were  as 
well  expressed  in  these  favorite  works. '"^ 

*See  the  "Independent"  of  Saturday,-  January  10th, 
1852.  We  do  not  intend  to  intimate  that  Prof.  Stuart 
was  not  deeply  beloved  by  his  brethren.  He  was  indeed 
beloved  ;  but  many  of  his  brethren  were  not  blind  to  the 
inequalities  (so  to  speak)  of  his  mind,  which  evidently 
was  not  well  balanced.  The  writer  from  whom  the  quo- 
tation above  was  made,  says  also,  "  Few  sights  have  been 
to  us  more  atiecting,  than  the  general  and  spontaneous 
burst  of  acclamatioi»,  transcending  all  so-called  ♦  proprie- 
tiea'  and  uttering  itself  in  instant  clapping  and  cheers, 
with  which  his  tall  and  wasted  form  was  greeted  by  the 
men  whom  he  had  instructed — men  many  of  them  emi- 
nent now  in  station  and  influence — when  he  met  them 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Alumni  at  Andover  a  few  years 
since,  h  was  the  inevitable  homage  of  the  heart,  to  one 
who  though  sometimes  abrupt  in  language  was  always 
cordial  and  generous  at  heart  ;  and  who,  though  not  al- 
ways implicitly  to  be  followed,  was  always  sincere,  self- 
devoted,  believing  "  The  "  Christian  Register,"  (Uni- 
tarian,) has  said,  "  It  was  not  our  privilege  to  have  any 
personal  acquaintance  with  Professor  Stuart.  Our  know- 
led  of  hirn  was  gained  first  from  his  controversial  writ- 
ings, and  afterwards  from  his  more  elaborate  critical 
works  on  ditFereat  portions  of  the  Bible.     He  has  seemed 

3 


CHAP.  III. 

MR.  BALFOUR    THROWN    INTO    DOUBT    AS    TO    THE 
DOCTRINE    OF    ENDLESS    MISERY. 

Mr.  Balfour  convert-     Prof.  Stuait,  whose  connexioH 

ed  by  means  of  •   i        i  at  t  •  • 

Prof,  stuaru  With  the  Anclover  Institution  we 
have  so  fully  described  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
was  the  means  of  converting  Mr.  Balfour,  under 
the  blessing  of  God,  to  the  belief  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  final  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  men. 
This,  of  course,  the  Professor  had  no  intention 
of  doing.  It  was  a  paragraph  in  his  Letters  to 
Rev.  Wm.  E.  Channing,  that  first  attracted  the 
attention  of  Mr.  Balfour  to  the  great  subject  of 
Universalism,  so  far  as  to  raise  the  suspicion  in 

to  us  an  ardent,  impulsive,  earnest,  large-souled  man, with 
a  vigorous  mind,  with  high  and  generous  aims,  and  a  true 
religious  enthusiasm,  carrying  with  him  a  vast  amount  of 
thought  and  learning,  often  more  than  he  had  either  the 
ability  or  the  time  thoroughly  to  master.  Hence  his 
thoughts  were  sometimes  crude,  his  measures  unwise,  and 
his  learning  incorrect.  His  books  have  great  merits,  but 
the  want  of  exactness  and  of  thorough  arrangement  must 
prevent  their  being  long  standard  authorities  ;  though 
they  may  furnish  the  materials  out  of  which  inferior  minds 
may  prepare  the  works  which  shall  take  their  place.' ' 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  35 

his  mind  that  that  doctrine  was  true.  Mr.  Chan- 
n'ing  at  the  time  was  pastor  of  one  of  the  churches 
in  Boston.  He  had  then  (1819)  become  an  open 
advocate  of  Unitarianism,  of  which  system  he 
had  been  the  principal  defender  in  this  country 
for  about  four  years  only.  The  circumstances 
which  called  out  Prof.  Stuart's  Letters  to  him, 
will  be  explained  in  a  subsequent  paragraph. 
The  class    of  christians  call-    ^.      ,^  .,   .    . 

Eis«  of  Unitarianism 

ed  Unitarians,  were  but  little  ^  New  England. 
known,  as  existing  in  New  England,  until  about 
the  year  1815.  Before  this  time  the  sentiments 
of  that  sect  had  secretly  spread,  and  some  clergy- 
men and  laymen,  were  strongly  suspected  of 
holding  them,  although  they  had  made  no  pullic 
avowal  which  justified  such  a  suspicion.  They 
corresponded  with  their  Unitarian  friends  in 
England,  to  whom  they  unbosomed  themselves. 
The  public  avowal  of  Unitarianism  was  drawn 
out  in  the  following  manner.  Rev.  Thomas 
Belsham,  a  Unitarian  clergyman,  of  London,  in 
preparing  the  biography  of  Rev.  Theophilus 
Lindsey,  the  father  of  Unitarianism  in  Great 
Britain,  devoted  a  chapter  to  the  history  of  Uni- 
tarianism in  the  United  States,  in  which  he  pub- 
lished the  epistles,  or  rather  extracts  from  the 
epistles,  which  he  had  received  from  his  Ameri- 
3~^    , 


36  MEBIOIR    aF 

can  correspondents.  This  book,  after  much  de- 
lay, fell  into  the  hands  of  the  leaders  of  the  or- 
thodox party  in  New  England;  who  proceeded 
at  once  to  publish,  in  Boston,  the  chapter  refer- 
red to.  It  will  be  difficult  for  any  one,  in  the 
present  day,  to  estimate  fully  the  effect  of  the 
disclosure.  The  Unitarians  were  charged,  by 
their  orthodox  opponents,  with  having  studiously 
concealed  their  Unitarian  opinions.  The  pam- 
phlet containing  the  disclosures,  was  reviewed 
by  a  spirited  writer  in  the  "  Panoplist,"  the  lead- 
ing orthodox  review  of  ihat  day.  So  thorough, 
efficacious  and  wide-spread  was  the  influence  of 
this  review,  that  Mr.  Channing,  who  had  not 
then  received  his  Doctor's  diploma,  felt  himself 
obliged  to  take  the  field  in  defence  of  himself, 
and  his  brethren.  A  controversy  of  some  length 
was  carried  on  between  him  and  Dr.  Worcester, 
of  Salem,  Mass.  Mr.  Channing  publicly  avow- 
ed himself  to  be  a  Unitarian.  Upon  his  confess- 
ing that  he  believed  in  Christ  as  a  distinct  being, 
dependent  on  God,  subordinate  to  him  and  deriv- 
ing all  from  him.  Dr.  Worcester  said,  "  Such 
is  your  confession  of  faith  :  and  for  this  con- 
fession, I,  dear  sir,  for  one,  most  sincerely  thank 
you  ;  and  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Christians, 
1  am  persuaded  will  thank  you.     It  will  serve  to 


Mr.   ChanDing's 
Balutaore  Sarmon, 


EEV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  37 

relieve  us  from  much  of  the  uncertainty  and 
much  of  the  embarrassment,  which,  uritil  now, 
we  have  felt  in  relation  to  you  and  your  liberal 
brethren.'"^  Hereafter  Mr.  Channing  \va3  con- 
sidered as  an  avowed  Unitarian. 

The  storm  of  the  Unitarian  con- 
troversy had  nearly  died  away,and 
men's  spirits  were  becoming  quiet  again,  when 
Mr.  Channing,  in  the  execution  of  his  duty,  dis- 
turbed once  more  the  aspect  of  the  heavens.  Ke 
was  called  to  Baltimore  to  preach  a  sermon  at 
the  ordination  of  Rev.  Jared  Sparks,  in  this  day 
the  President  of  Harvard  University.  The  ser- 
vice took  place  on  the  5th  of  May,  1819.  The 
sermon  was  one  of  the  most  effective  ever  writ- 
ten by  its  author, — a  calm,  dignified,  manly,  hon- 
est statement  and  defence  of  Unitarianism,  and 
a  thorough,  bold,  and  christian  exposure  of  the 
absurdities  of  Calvinism.  He  departed  from 
the  course  generally  pursued  at  ordinations  ;  he 
did  not  speak  of  the  nature,  design,  duties  and 

*Thi3  wag  the  first  distinct  public  avowal  of  Unitari- 
anisai  maiie  by  the  late  Dr.  Channing.  In  1808  he 
preached  the  ordination  sermon  of  Mr,  (afterwards  Dr  ) 
Codman,  of  Dorchester,  a  rigid  Calvinist.  Up  to  1815, 
Mr.  Channing  had  remained  uncomn)itted,  as  had  almost 
all  his  brethren.  What  their  private  understandings  and 
mutual  concessions  might  have  been,  we  know  not  ;  we 
speak  only  of  what  was  made  public. 


38  MEMOIR    OF 

advantages  of  the  christian  ministry ;  hut  he 
went  into  a  statement  and  defence  of  the  doc- 
trines believed  by  Unitarians,  setting  them  off  in 
contrast  with  the  opinions  of  his  opponents.  He 
unfolded  the  principles  which  Unitarians  adopt 
in  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  and  asserted  the 
doctrines  which  the  Scriptures,  thus  interpreted, 
seemed  to  him  to  express.  This  discourse,  we 
think,  taken  in  all  its  circumstances  and  effects, 
was  the  severest  blow,  that  Calvinism  had  ever 
received  in  the  United  States.  Mr.  Channing 
m^aintained  that  the  Bible  is  a  book  written  for 
men,  in  the  language  of  men,  and  that  its  mean- 
ing is  to  be  sought  in  the  same  manner,  as  that 
of  other  books.  "  We  believe  (said  he)  that  God, 
when  he  condescends  to  speak  and  write,  sub- 
mits, if  we  may  so  say,  to  the  established  rules 
of  speaking  and  writing.  How  else  would  the 
Scriptures  avail  us  more  than  if  communicated 
in  an  unknown  tongue  ?"  In  the  interpretation 
of  this  book  men  must  use  their  reason.  "  We 
profess  to  know  no  book,  (said  he,)  which  de- 
mands a  more  frequent  exercise  of  reason  than 
the  Bible."  He  defended  at  much  length  the 
necessity  of  using  reason  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures.  He  then  proceeded  to  state 
some  of  the  views  which  he  derived  from  the 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  39 

Bible,    particularly  such  as   distinguished  him 
from  other  christians. 

He  asserted,  1st.  The  unity  of  God.  He  at- 
tacked the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  in  the  most 
open  and  forcible  manner.  He  showed  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  was  clearly  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments. He  objected  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  on  account  of  its  practical  influence  ;  it 
distracted  the  mind  to  worship  three  infinite 
persons,  notwithstanding  they  might  be  called 
one  God.  2d.  He  taught  the  unity  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  here  again  he  attacked  with  great 
vigor  the  view  taken  by  the  Trinitarian.  He 
then  proceeded  to  treat  of  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  He  believed  that  christians  had  generally 
leaned  towards  very  injurious  views  of  the  Su- 
preme Being.  "  We  believe  (said  he)  that  God 
is  good,  kind  and  benevolent,  in  the  proper  sense 
of  these  words  ;  good  in  disposition  as  well  as  in 
act ;  good  not  to  a  few,  but  to  all ;  good  to  every 
individual,  as  well  as  to  the  general  system." 
God's  justice  is  but  another  form  of  his  goodness. 
Mr.  Channing  asserted  the  paternal  character  of 
God.  He  ascribed  to  Him,  not  only  the  name, 
but  the  principles  and  disposition  of  a  parent. 
He  objected  to  Calvinism  that  it  took  away  from 


40 


MEMOIR    OF 


men  their  Father  in  heaven,  and  sulDStituted  in 
his  place  a  being  whom  they  could  not  love,  if 
they  would,  and  whom  they  ought  not  to  love,  if 
they  could.  He  denounced  the  doctrines  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  as  taught  by  the  so  called 
orthodox,  with  great  earnestness  and  effect.  He 
denounced  the  views  which  orthodoxy  gives  of 
the  moral  perfection  of  Deity  in  unsparing  terms. 
"We  ask  our  opponents  to  leave  to  us  a  God 
(said  he)  w^orthy  of  our  love  and  trust,  in  whom 
our  moral  sentiments  may  delight,  in  whom  our 
weaknesses  and  sorrows  may  find  refuge.  We 
cling  to  the  divine  perfections.  We  meet  them 
every  where  in  creation,  we  read  them  in  the 
Scriptures,  w'e  see  a  lovely  image  of  them  in  Je- 
sus Christ ;  and  gratitude,  love  and  veneration 
call  on  us  to  assert  them."  The  preacher  then 
proceeded  to  speak  of  the  mediation  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  purposes  for  which  he  died.  Here 
he  asserted  the  Scriptural  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  in  contradistinction,  to  the  harsh, 
half-heathenish  doctrine  on  the  same  subject,  as- 
serted by  those  who  call  themselves  orthodox. 
He  condemned  the  doctrine  as  a  theory,  and  he 
condemned  it  for  its  practical  influences.  From 
these  subjects,  the  speaker  proceeded  to  define 
the  nature  of  christian  virtue,  or  obedience  to 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  41 

God,  under  which  head  he  showed  that  much 
that  passed  in  the  world  for  religion  or  moral 
goodness,  or  fitness  for  heaven,  was  very  far  from 
being  so.  Much  that  was  called  piety  he  believ- 
ed to  be  worthless.  Such,  in  brief,  was  the  doc- 
trinal character  of  the  famous  sermon  which  pro- 
voked the  first  letters  from  Prof.  Stuart  to  Mr. 
Channing. 

The  Sermon  of  air.  Channinsf  ^ 

^     Prcf.   Stuart's  letters 

had  not  been  long  before  the  pub-  ^°  ^"'  chaamng. 
lie,  when  the  letters  of  Prof.  Stuart  appeared. 
The  main  object  of  the  Professor  was  to  show, 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  orthodox  party  of  New 
Englcmd,  were  not  subject  to  the  objections  made 
by  Mr.  Channing,  but  were,  in  fact,  truths  re- 
vealed by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  men,  by  means  of 
the  sacred  Writings.  Prof.  Stuart  seemed  par- 
ticularly solicitous  to  defend  against  the  assaults 
of  Mr.  Channing,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
great  point  of  distinction  between  the  two  par- 
ties. To  show  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity, — the  one  living  and  true 
God, — he  aimed  to  prove  that  he  was  worthy 
of  the  worship  of  every  human  being ;  that 
christians  ought  to  worship  him  as  God;  that 
Christ  ought  to  be  worshipped  on  earth  as  he  is 
worshipped  in  heaven  ;  that  if  he  be  the  object 


42 


MEMOIR    OF 


of  worship  in  heaven,  he  should  be  the  object  of 

worship  on  earth.     He  hoped  in  this  way  to  parry 

the  arguments  of  Mr.  Channing,  and  sustain  the 

confidence  of  those  who  believed  that  the  Father 

and  Jesus  were  the  same  being.     The  following 

paragraph  contains  his  language  on  this  point; 

•♦  PhilHp.  ii :  10,  11,  '  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
e%'ery  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things 
in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father'  Things  in  heaven,  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common  peripl)rasis  of  the 
Hebrew  and  New  Testament  writers,  for  the  Uni- 
verse ;  (ta  pan  or  ta  panta.)  VA^hat  can  be  meant  by 
things  in  heaven,  i.  e.  beings  in  heaven,  bowing  the 
knee  to  Jesus,  if  spiritual  worship  be  not  meant? 
What  other  worship  can  heaven  render?  And  if  the 
worship  of  Christ  in  heaven  be  spiritual,  should  not 
that  of  others,  who  ought  to  be  in  temper  united  with 
them,  be  s])iritual  also?  Rev.  v  :  8,  14,'  And  when 
he  (i.  e.  Christ,  see  ver.  6,  7,)  took  the  book,  the  four 
beasts  and  four  and  twenty  elders  fell  down  before  the 
Lamb,  having  every  one  of  them  harps,  and  golden 
vials  full  of  odors,  which  are  the  prayers  of  the  saints. 
And  they  sung  a  new  song,  saying,  thou  art  woithy 
to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof:  for 
thou  wast  slain  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people, 
and  nation  ;  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and 
priests;  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth.  And  1  be- 
held and  heard  the  voice  of  many  angels  round  about 
the  throne  and  the  beasts  and  the  elders  ;  and  the 
number  of  them  was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand, 
and  thousands  of  thousands  ;  saying  with  a  loud  voice, 
worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power, 


EEV.    WALTER    BALPOUR.  43 

and  riches,  ar.d  wisdom,  and  sireng-th,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  blessinor.  And  every  creature  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and 
such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard 
I  sayincr,  blessing,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  power, 
be  unto  him  that  sitteih  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the 
Lamb  forever  and  ever.  And  the  four  beasts  said 
Amen.  And  the  four  and  twenty  elders  fell  down 
and  worshipped  him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever.'  If 
this  be  not  spiritval  worship — and  if  Christ  be  not  the 
object  of  it  here  ;  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case, 
where  worship  can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine." 
pp.  101,  102. 

It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  fact   ^  ,  ^, 

A  remarkable 

that  Prof.  Stuart  should  have  indited  p^^-^^^^p^-' 
such  a  paragraph  as  this.  However  strong  it  might 
have  appeared  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity, it  is  remarkable  that  he  did  not  see  its  bear- 
ing as  affecting  the  question  of  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  If  all  human  beings  are  at  last  to  worship 
Christ,  with  spiritual  and  divine  worship,  must 
they  not  all  be  happy  when  they  render  such 
worship?  and  if  so,  can  the  doctrine  of  endless 
misery  be  true  ?  There  is  no  way  in  which  we 
can  account  for  the  uttering  of  such  an  argument, 
except  on  the  presumption  that  the  Professor  did 
not  see  the  full  bearing  of  what  he  wrote.  We 
have  before  stated  the  fact  that  he  was  not  ?l  pro- 
found thinker  ;  he  was  more  specious  than  sa- 
gacious ;  and  this  opinion  we  have  confirmed,  by 


44  MEMOIR    OF 

the  testimony  of  some  of  his  own  brethren  in  the 
church.  His  opponents,  the  Unitarian,  review- 
ers, charged  him  with  uttering-  many  contradic- 
tions. As  for  instance,  in  treating  of  the  princi- 
ples of  interpretation  propounded  by  Dr.  Chan- 
ning.  Prof.  Stuart  commenced  by  objecting  to 
those  principles  altogether ;  as  he  went  on  to  re- 
view them,  he  seemed  to  adopt  them  one  by  one, 
or  at  least  to  see  but  little  objection  to  them  ;  but 
at  last,  he  excites  the  wonder  of  his  reader  by 
saying,  that  the  adoption  of  such  principles  will 
eventually  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Bible 
is  not  of  divine  origin  !  "  We  think  (says  the 
Unitarian  reviewer)  we  never  witnessed  so  com- 
plete a  revolution  of  opinion,  within  the  compass 
of  two  hundred  pages.  The  wheel  has  come  full 
circle. ^^^ 
Mr.  Balfour       Mr.  Balfour,  of  course,  read  Prof. 

thrown 

into  doubt.  Stuart's  Letters  to  Mr.  Channing,  for 
he  was  accustomed  to  read  almost  every  thing, 
especi;illy  on  dogmatical  theology.  Pie  was  a 
firm  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery, 
of  which  he  had  never  had  a  doubt  in  his  life. 
If  he  regarded  any  thing  as  beyond  all  doubt,  it 
was  that  doctrine.     He  htxd  a  high  regard,  a  great 

*  See  Christian  Disciple,  for  July  and  August,  1819, 
p.  322- 


REV.    AVALTER     BALFOUR.  45 

respect  for  Prof.  Stuart,  as  a  man  of  learning, 
eminent  in  the  midst  of  the  churches,  to  whom 
any  of  his  brethren  might  look  with  propriety  for 
knowledge,  and  for  assistance 'in  solving  difficult 
matters.  He  seized  his  Letters  at  once,  and  read 
them  with  great  avidity.  When  he  came  to  the 
passage  w^e  have  quoted  above,  his  faith  was 
staggered.  He  was  thrown  into  amazement  ! 
What  could  it  mean  ?  Prof.  Stuart  certainly  did 
not  intend  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  Universalism  ; 
and  yet  there  seemed  to  Mr.  Balfour  to  be  no 
way  to  controvert  the  statem.ents,  nor  to  receive 
them,  unless  he  should  also  receive  the  doctrine 
of  Universalism,  which  he  had  so  long  regarded 
as  a  great  error.  He  expressed  his  own  feelings 
on  this  subject  in  the  following  language  : 

"  Until  the  year  1819,  a  serious  thought  never  oc- 
cupied my  mind,  that  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment might  be  false.  In  the  belief  of  this  doctrine  I 
had  been  educated  fiorn  my  childhood.  The  books  I 
read  ;  the  preaching  I  heard  ;  and  all  my  religious  in- 
tercourse ;  tended  to  deepen  my  early  impressions, 
that  it  was  scriptural.  Believing  it  to  be  so,  1  had 
preached  it  for  several  years  both  in  Scotland  and 
America.  In  the  course  of  my  reading,  I  had  perused 
several  books  on  the  subject  of  universal  restoration, 
but  they  only  tended  to  confirm  me  in  the  belief,  that 
endless  punishment  was  true,  and  that  reformation  in 
hell  arid  salvation  from  it,  could  not  be  established 
from  the  Bible,  i  deemed  Universalism  a  great  error, 
sometimes  discussed  the  subject  with  Universalists  and 
always  thought  I  had  the  best  of  the  argument. 


46  MEMOIR    OF 

"  The  first  thing  which  staggered  my  faith  in  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  was  reading  that  par- 
agraph of  Prof.  Stuart's  letters  to  Dr.  Channing  quo- 
ted in  my  first  letter.  His  statements,  I  was  unable 
to  controvert,  and  the  texts  on  which  they  were  found- 
ed, seemed  to  support  them." 

Mr.  Balfour        As  Prof.  Stuart  had  been  the  cause 
Prof,  "^stuart.  of  Mr.  Balfoui's  doubts,  the  latter  be- 
lieved it  was  his  right  to  ask  him  how  he  would 
reconcile  his  statements  with  his  professed  be- 
lief in  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery.     Although 
Mr.  Balfour  could  see  no,way  in  which  this  could 
be  done,  he  still  supposed  that  the  Professor  must 
have  some  way  in  which  he  could  do  it.     It  was 
not  as  a  Universalist,  but  as  an  inquirer,  a  doubt- 
er, that  Mr.  B.  went  to  him.     He  went  almost 
in  a  state  of  alarm  ;  he  felt  still  that  Universal- 
ism  was  a  great  error  ;  he  felt  somewhat  as  a 
man  would  who  had  been  drawn  to  the  edge  of  a 
frightful  precipice,  and  left  there,  alarmed  and 
dizzy,  without  seeing  any  way  by  which  he  might 
retrace  his  steps.     Although  he  was  not  afraid 
of  truth,  he  was  afraid  of  Universalism  ;  he  be- 
lieved it  a  snare  of  the  devil,  and  he  was  afraid 
he  should  fall  into  it.     He  believed  that  the  Pro- 
fessor would  come  to  his  help.     Still,  it  will  be 
seen  from  Mr.  Balfour's  whole  character,  that  if 
Universalism  were  really  true,  he  would  desire 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  47 

to  know  it.  He  felt  perhaps  there  was  some 
danger  that  he  might  be  deluded  merely  by  error 
seeming  to  be  truth.  He  determined  therefore, 
to  address  the  Professor  an  epistle,  which  he  did 
in  the  following  terms  : 

TO    MOSES    STUART, 

Associate  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Theological 
Ssminary^  at  Andover,  Mass. 

Sir, — I  have  read  your  letters  to  Mr.  Channing. 
It  is  not  my  object  to  interfere  in  the  coniroversy  be- 
tween you,  but  to  call  your  attention  to  one  thing  in 
them,  which  is  not  likely  to  be  noticed  by  ycur  oppo- 
nents, but  which  struck  my  mind  with  great  force 
while  reading  them.  As  the  paragraph  is  not  very 
long  on  which  I  wish  to  remark,  I  shall  quote  it.  In 
your  third  edition,  proving  that  divine  honors  and 
worship  are  ascribed  to  Christ,  you  have  the  following 
quotations  from  Scripture,  and  observations  : 

"  Phillip,  ii  :  10,  II—'  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that 
every  tongue  sliould  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord, 
to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.'  Things  in  heaven, 
earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common  periphrasis 
of  the  Hebrew  and  New  Testament  writers  for  the 
Universe  ;  (ta  pan  or  ta  panta.)  What  can  be  meant 
by  things  in  heaven,  i.  e.,  beings  in  heaven,  bowing 
the  knee  to  Jesus,  if  spiritual  worship  be  not  meant? 
What  other  worship  can  heaven  render?  And  if  the 
worship  of  Christ  in  heaven  be  spiritual;  should  not 
that  of  others,  who  ought  to  be  in  temper  united  with 
them,  be  spiritual  also?  Rev.  v:  8 — 14,  'x^nd  when 
he  (i.  e  Christ,  see  ver.  6,  7,)  took  the  book,  the  four 
beasts  and  four  and  twenty  elders  fell  down  before  the 
Lamb,  having  every  one  of  them  harps,  and  golden 


48  ME3I0IR    OF 

vials  full  of  odors,  which  are  the  prayers  of  the  saints. 
And  they  sung  a  new  song,  saying,  thou  art  worthy 
to  take  the  hook,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof :  ior 
thou  wast  slain  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  ihy 
blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people, 
and  nation  ;  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God  kings 
and  priests  ;  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth.  And 
1  beheld  and  heard  the  voice  of  many  angels  round 
about  the  throne  and  the  beasts  and  the  elders;  and 
the  number  of  them  was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thou- 
sand, and  thousands  of  thousands  ;  saying  with  a  loud 
voice,  worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive 
power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  And  every  creature 
which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the 
earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in 
them,  heard  I  saying,  blessing,  and  honor,  and  glory, 
and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitieth  upon  the  tlirone, 
and  unto  the  Lamb  forever  and  ever.  And  the  four 
beasts  said  Amen.  And  the  four  and  twenty  elders 
fell  down  and  worshipped  him  that  liveth  forever  and 
ever.'  If  this  be  not  spiritual  worship — and  if  Christ 
be  not  the  object  of  it  here.  I  am  unable  to  produce  a 
case  where  worship  can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine." 
Such,  Sir,  are  the  Scriptures  you  have  quoted,  and 
such  are  the  comments  you  have  given,  and  this  is 
the  paragraph,  which  arrested  my  attention.  Upon 
reading  it,  the  followinji  ideas  rushed  into  my  mind 
with  much  violence  :  "  Things  in  heaven,  earth,  and 
under  the  earth  is  a  periphrasis  for  the  universe  ;  this 
universe  worships  Christ  with  spiritual  and  divine 
worship,  and  yet  INIr.  Stuart  believes  that  many  in 
this  very  universe  are  to  be  punislied  in  hell  for  ever. 
1  paused,  and  concluded,  that  I  certainly  must  havt 
read  or  understood  you  wrong.  I  returned,  and  read 
with  careful  attention,  the  whole  division  of  your  sub- 
ject, in  which  the  above  quotation  occurs,  but  found 
to  my  surprise  I  had  not.     After  repeated  perusals  of 


REV.    WALTER     BALEOUR.  49 

it,  and  after  much  reflection  upon  it,  I  am  constrained 
to  think  that  you  either  are,  or  ought  to  be,  a  Univer- 
salist.  Sure  I  am,  that  nothing  which  1  have  ever 
read  or  heard,  in  so  few  words,  so  conclusively  estab- 
lishes the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation.  Having  re- 
ceived the  impression,  from  reading  your  letters,  that 
you  are  a  candid,  honest  man,  it  has  led  me  thus  to 
address  you.  I  cannot  suffer  myself  to  think  that  you 
secretly  believe  all  will  finally  be  saved,  and  publicly 
profess  to  believe  a  different  doctrine.  I  have  conclu- 
ded that  this  passage  of  your  letters  must  have  been 
inadvertantly  written,  or  you  must  have  some  way  of 
getting  rid  of  difficulties  from  the  texts  you  have  quo- 
ted, and  your  comments,  of  which  I  candidly  confess 
my  ignoranca.  The  object  of  this  correspondence  is 
to  state  what  has  occurred  to  me,  and  to  request  fur- 
ther information  from  you  on  this  subject. 

I  am  unable  to  controvert  what  you  say,  that, 
"things  in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  a 
common  periphrasis  of  the  Hebrew  and  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  for  the  universa,"  My  present  degree 
of  knowledge  leads  me  to  think  that  this  statement  is 
correct.  If  it  be  not,  I  should  be  glad  to  see  the  evi- 
dence by  which  it  is  disproved.  Neither  can  I,  nor 
am  I  disposed  to  dispute  that  the  worship  spoken  of 
in  the  texts  quoted  by  you,  is  spiritual  worship.  So 
sure  you  are  of  this,  that  you  say,  "  if  this  be  not 
spiritual  worship,  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case  where 
worship  can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine."  Now, 
my  dear  sir,  if  it  be  true  that  things  in  heaven,  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common  periphrasis  for  the 
universe;  and  if  it  also  be  true  that  this  worship  is 
spiritual  and  divine,  you  certainly  have  told  us  that 
the  universe  is  to  worship  Christ  with  spiritual  and 
divine  worship.  The  worship  is  spiritual  and  divine, 
and  the  universe  are  the  worshippers.  Are  we  able 
to  avoid  this  I  The  mind  must  be  diffarently  construct- 
ed from  mine  that  can  avoid  it.  Is  it,  or  can  it  be 
4 


50  MEMOIR   OF 

believed  by  any  any  one,  that  any  beings  in  the  uni- 
verse who  worship  Christ  thus  shall  be  punished  for- 
ever? I  am  sure  I  never  had  any  such  idea  ;  and  I 
have  always  understood  that  it  was  on  account  of  per- 
sons not  worshipping  Christ  in  this  way  that  they 
were  punished.  You  certainly  cannot  think  that  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked  forever,  is  in  whole  or  in 
part  to  consist,  in  rendering  to  Christ  spiritual  and 
divine  worship.  If  this  be  punishment,  what  is  hap- 
piness]    If  this  be  hell,  what  is  heaven? 

It  is  pretty  evident  to  me  from  these  texts  which 
you  have  quoted,  and  the  explanations  you  have  given, 
that  the  universe  is  to  worship  Christ  with  spiritual 
and  divine  worship.  Notwithstanding  this,  I  presume 
you  profess  to  believe  that  some,  if  not  many  in  this 
universe,  are  to  be  forever  miserable.  How  to  recon- 
cile these  things,  has  been  a  subject  of  consideration 
with  me.  After  turning  and  looking  to  these  things 
on  all  sides,  I  am  unable  to  devise  how  you  can  recon- 
cile them  to  your  own  mind,  but  in  ^ne  or  the  other 
of  the  three  following  ways.  But  as  each  of  these 
ways  present  to  me  some  difficulties,  1  shall  state 
them,  hoping  that  you  will  assist  me,  if  possible,  to 
remove  them.  But  this  must  be  the  matter  of  another 
communication.* 

I  am  yours,  respectfully, 

An  Inquirer  after  Truth. 

♦♦'Rev.  Walter  Balfour's  Letters  to  Professor  Stuart  are 
most  able  and  instructive  papers.  They  are  out  of  print 
now,  but  should  be  in  a  form  to  be  obtained  by  all  inquir- 
ers after  truth.  Br.  Whittemore  proposes  to  publish  a 
Memoir  of  Br,  Balfour,  and  we  hope  these  Letters  will 
be  introduced  into  that  work,  for  extensive  circulation 
and  permanent  preservation."  See  *  Christian  Freeman  ' 
of  January  16,  1852.  For  the  first  published  copy  of 
this  letter,  see  "  Universalist  Magazine  '  of  January  29th, 
1820, 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  51 

Mr.  Balfour  chose,  as  the  me- The  paperinwhicii 

...  the  letters  were 

dium  of  the  communication  be-  published, 
tween  himself  and  the  Professor,  "  The  Uni- 
Yersalist  Magazine."  This  was  a  small  quar- 
to sheet,  of  four  pages,  which  had  been  com- 
menced in  the  summer  of  1819.  Henry  Bowen 
was  the  publisher,  and  Rev.  Hosea  Ballou 
the  editor.  With  neither  of  these  individuals 
had  Mr.  Balfour  any  acquaintance,  nor  had 
they  ever  seen  him.  In  fact  the  authorship  of 
the  letters  was  totally  unknown  to  them,  or  to 
any  one  else  except  the  writer  of  them.  He 
chose  the  "  Magazine,"  because  probably  he 
doubted,  whether  any  other  religious  paper  would 
be  open  to  such  communications;  and  from  the 
nature  of  the  letters,  he  had  no  doubt  they  would 
be  admitted  to  the  Magazine.  Copies  of  the 
papers  containing  them  were  sent  to  the  Profes- 
sor, who  undoubtedly  received  them  and  read 
them,  but  he  gave  no  answer.  It  is  a  subject 
worthy  of  a  very  serious  inquiry,  whether  he 
could  give  an  answer  consistently  with  his  duty 
to  defend  the  specific  creed  of  the  Institution 
with  which  he  was  connected.  There  were  three 
letters  in  the  first  series.  We  proceed  to  give 
the  remaining  two : 


4# 


52  MEMOIR  OF 

TO    MOSES    STUART, 

Associate  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover.     No.  ii. 

Sir, — 1  staled  to  you  in  my  last  communication, 
that  there  were  only  three  ways  which  had  occurred 
to  me,  by  which  you  could  make  the  everlasting  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked,  consistent  with  the  quotation 
I  made  from  your  letters.  As  each  of  these  ways, 
presents  difficulties  to  my  mind,  I  shall  proceed  to  a 
statement  of  them,  relying  on  you  for  some  explana- 
tion. 

1st.  It  occurred  to  me,  that  you  might  believe  the 
universe,  would  render  spiritual  and  divine  worship  to 
Christ,  yet  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked,  by  saying,  that,  "  the  place  of  their 
punishment  was  without  the  hounds  of  the  universe." 
Admitting  this  to  be  your  view,  I  admit  your  state- 
ments to  be  consistent  with  your  belief  in  the  eternal 
punishment  of  the  wicked.  My  mind,  however, 
asks,  "  Is  this  true  '  "  Do  not  you  think  that  this  is 
a  very  fanciful  idea?  If  you  indeed  suppose  that  the 
place  where  the  wicked  are  to  be  punished  is  without 
the  bounds  of  the  universe,  please  inform  us  in  whose 
dominions  this  place  is?  But  as  I  do  not  believe  you 
capable  of  entertaining  such  a  foolish  idea,  I  pass 
this,  and  notice, 

Sd.  That  it  further  occurred  to  me  you  might  at- 
tempt to  extricate  yourself  from  the  difficulties  in 
which  the  paragraph  quoted  involves  you,  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  In  commenting  on  the  passage  quo- 
ted from  Phillipians,  you  say,  Christ  "  is  the  proper 
object  of  universal  adoration."  Did  you  mean  by 
this  to  inform  us  that  Christ  was  the  proper  object  of 
universal  adoration,  but  that  he  was  not  universally 
adored?  If  so,  I  can  easily  understand  how  you  hold 
to  the  everlasting  punishment  of  some,  but  then  [  am 
unable  to  reconcile  this  with  the  comments  which  you 


REV.    WALTER    FBAFOUR.  53 

have  given  in  the  paragraph  of  your  letters  on  vi-hich 
I  am  remarking.  Remember,  sir,  you  have  told  us 
that  "  things  in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the  earth, 
is  a  common  periphrasis  for  the  universe."  Besides, 
the  texts  quoted,  and  your  comments  upon  them,  seem 
to  prove  that  this  very  universe  renders  spiritual  and 
divine  worship  to  Christ.  Should  this  seem  the  least 
doubtful  from  the  text  in  PhilUpians,  all  doubt  seems 
to  be  removed  by  the  one  you  quote  from  Revelation. 
Notice  its  language,  sir,  "  And  every  creature  which 
is  m  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth, 
and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them 
heard  I  saying,  blessing  and  honor,  &c."  Observe, 
also,  your  own  language  in  commenting  on  this  pas- 
sage. Do  you  speak  of  Christ  being  only  "  the  prop- 
er object  of  universal  adoration,  but  not  universally 
adored?"  No,  you  say,  "  if  this  be  not  spiritual 
worship,  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case  where  worship 
can  bs  called  spiritual  and  divine."  Joim's  language 
does  not,  and  your  comment  on  it  does  not  deny,  but 
as  the  worship  is  divine,  the  universe  are  the  worship- 
pers. On  the  contrary,  have  you  not  said,  "  things 
in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  a  periphrasis 
of  the  Hebrew  and  New  Testament  writers  for  the 
universe."  If  this  indeed  be  true,  and  you  are  confi- 
dent that  the  worship  rendered  by  this  universe  is 
spiritual  and  diyine,  where  do  you  find  your  subjects 
for  everlasting  punishment,  unless  among  sjnritnal 
and  divine  worshippers  of  Christ?  Are  any  of  them 
to  b3  the  subjects  of  this?  As  I  am  confident  you  do 
not  believe  any  such  thing,  suffer  me  to  appeal  to  your 
candor,  if  there  is  not  a  difficulty,  which  requires  your 
consideration  here,  and  which  1  hope  you  will  con- 
descend to  resolve.  You  are  a  man  of  too  much  mind 
not  to  perceive  the  difficulty,  and  my  opinion  of  you 
is,  that  you  are  possessed  of  sufficient  humility  to  say 
something  by  way  of  explanation. 

3d.  But  it  occurred  to  me  that   vou  reconcilsd  the 


54  MEMOIR    OF 

paragraph  on  which  I  am  rrmarking,  with  your  beliet 
of  endless  punishment,  by  explaining  the  universal 
langjiage  of  Paul  and  John  in  the  texts  in  a  restricted 
senso.  Presuming  that  this  is  the  mode  you  take  of 
extricating  yourself,  my  desire  is  to  see  you  do  it 
honorably.  The  difficulties  which  have  presented 
themselves  to  me  on  this  mode  of  interpretation,  will 
be  best  presented  to  you  by  considering  the  two  pas- 
sages which  you  quote,  in  order. 

Jn  Phillip,  ii :  10,  11,  the  word  ^'ery  is  found 
twice  :  "  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  Let 
us  then  understand  the  word  every  here,  as  not  mean- 
ing all  or  every  individual,  but  only  some,  and  see  how 
it  will  suit.  '•  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  some  knees 
should  bow  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  some  tongues 
should  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father."  According  to  this  way  of  un- 
derstanding the  word  every,  only  some  knees  in  heaven 
bow  to  Christ,  and  some  tongues  confess  that  he  is 
Lord.  But  is  this  true?  Are  there  any  such  as  bow 
not  to,  or  confess  not  Christ  in  heaven?  This  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  every,  however  well  it  might 
suit,  when  applied  to  persons  on  earth,  and  under  the 
earth,  it  will  not  do  when  applied  lo  persons  in  heaven. 
Are  vve  then  in  this  passage  to  understand  the  word 
as  meaning  all  or  every  individual  in  heaven,  and  only 
some  on  the  earth?  I'iiis  would  be  understanding  the 
word  every,  in  two  different  senses  m  the  course  of 
one  sentence  The  word  every  is  not  repeated,  but 
ought  to  be  understood  as  repeated,  after  every  thing 
spoken  of  in  the  passage,  thus,  ''  that  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow 
of  things  on  earth,  and  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow  of  things  under  the  earth." 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  55 

And  the  apostle  adds,  as  including  all  he  had  just 
mentioned,  "And  that  every  tonjjue  should  confess 
thai  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther." But  in  this  way  of  understanding  the  word 
every,  the  passage  must  read  thus,  "  That  at  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  at  the  name  of  Jesus  some  knees  should  bow,  of 
things  in  earth,  and  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  some 
knees  should  bow  of  things  under  the  earth."  But, 
supposing  that  all  this  was  very  good,  how  are  we  to 
dispose  of  the  next  part  of  the  sentence  in  which  the 
word  every  occurs?  "  And  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  &c."  In  what 
sense  are  we  to  understand  the  word  every,  here"^ 
Does  it  mean  some  or  every  individual  ?  If  only  some, 
it  must  refer  to,  and  be  restricted  by,  the  things  on  ., 
earth,  and  under  the  earth.  If  it  means  all  or  every  0'- 
individual,  it  is  only  applicable  to  the  things  in  heaven. 
Now,  my  dear  sir,  in  which  of  these  senses  are  \(e  to 
understand  it''  If  the  word  every  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  meaning  every  individual  uniformly  through- 
out the  whole  passage,  be  pleased  to  refer  to  some 
other  parallel  texts,  in  which  the  word  every  must 
evidently  be  understood  in  two  such  different  senses  in 
the  course  of  one  sentence. 

But  perhaps  you  may  say,  "  have  I  not  explained 
things  in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  to  be  a 
common  periphrasis  of  the  Hebrew  and  New  Testa- 
ment writers  for  the  universe,"  collectively  taken,  and 
not  in  this  way  of  separating  its  parts.  Yes,  vou 
have,  and  to  this  very  thing  I  wish  to  call  your  atten- 
tion. Let  us,  then,  see  how  it  will  do  to  understand 
the  word  every  as  only  meaning  some  in  the  universe. 
It  is  a  plain  case,  and  stands  thus:  You  make  the 
apostle  gravely  tell  us,  "  some  in  the  universe  shall 
bow  the  knee  to  Jesus,  and  some  in  the  universe  shall 
confess  that  he  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther."    Da  you  think  that  this  was  all  the  apostle 


56  MEMOIR    OF 

meant  to  express  in  the  passage?  Is  this  then  all  the 
Saviour's  reward  for  his  humiliation,  sufferings  and 
death,  recorded  in  the  preceding  verses?  Is  this  in- 
deed all  for  which  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
given  him  a  name  ahove  every  name,  that  some  knees 
should  bow  to  him  in  the  universe,  and  some  tongues 
confess  ihat  he  is  Lord  ?  Jf  we  thus  modify,  and  ex- 
plain away  the  word  every,  it  is  all  the  apostle  did 
express,  and  this  is  all  the  reward  of  Jesus'  work. 
It  will  not  mend  the  matter  much,  if  instead  of  the 
word  some^  we  should  substitute  the  word  many.  The 
difficulty  still  presses,  where  it  most  needs  to  be  re- 
lieved. Let  us  see  if  it  does  not.  "  That  at  the  name 
of  Jesus,  many  knees  should  bow  of  things  in  heav- 
en," &c.  You  may  easily  perceive  that  it  still  makes 
the  apostle  say  that  there  are  in  heaven  some  knecB 
which  do  not  bow  to  Christ,  and  some  tongues  that  do 
not  confess  that  he  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father.  Understanding  it  of  the  universe  collectively, 
it  makes  the  apostle  say,  that,  "  ;/?wj?/  knees  shall 
bow  to  Christ,  and  many  tongues  in  the  universe  lihall 
confess  that  he  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther ;  "  but  T  doubt  if  this  is  the  full  amount  of  the 
apostle's  meaning.  If  you  think  it  is,  1  will  thank 
you  to  make  this  clearly  appear.  The  things  which 
lead  me  to  doubt,  1  shall  briefly  state  that  you  may 
accommodate  your  reply  accordingly. 

The  word  "every"  appears  to  me  to  apply  equally  to 
every  thing  mentioned  in  the  passage.  It  seems  to 
me  to  be  an  arbitrary  mode  of  interpretation,  to  make 
it  mean  evfry  individual  in  heaven,  and  ordy  some  or 
many  on  earth  and  under  the  earth.  Besides,  I  would 
submit  it  to  your  superior  judgment  whether  the  apos- 
tle does  not,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  passage,  encour- 
age us  to  take  the  most  extensive  view  of  what  he 
says  in  the  beginning  of  it.  After  saying,  "  Ihat  at 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth,  and  things  under  the 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR. 


57 


earth,"  instead  of  qualifying  these  genera]  or  univer- 
sal expressions,  he  adds,  "  And  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father."  But  further,  what  bears  weight 
in  my  mind  most,  is,  the  connexion  in  which  the  pas- 
sage stands,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  intro- 
ducing it.  This  is  so  obvious  that  I  need  tiot  point  it 
out.  J  would  only  say,  it  seems  most  natural  to  me 
that  the  apostle,  in  showing  the  exalted  condition  of 
the  Saviour,  instead  of  using  language  which  needed 
to  be  qualified,  would  use  language  which  ought  to  be 
understood  in  its  most  unlimited  sense.  I  may  add, 
and  which  has  some  weight  with  me,  that  in  the  verse 
preceding  the  passage  under  consideration,  the  apostle 
uses  the  word  eccry,  as  1  think  cannot  he  doubted 
must  be  understood  in  its  most  extensive  sense.  It 
runs  thus,  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name."  Must  we  change  the  word  every  into  so7ne 
or  many  immediately,  for  the  apostle  adds,  with  the 
very  next  breath,  "  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  should  bow,"  &c.  Must  not  the  every  knee 
that  shall  bow  to  him,  and  the  every  tongue  that  shall 
confess  that  he  is  Lord,  be  as  extensively  understood 
as  the  every  name  he  is  above  ? 

As  I  have  not  the  talent  of  saying  much  in  few 
words,  I  must  reserve  the  remainder  of  my  remarks 
for  one  more  communication. 

Yours,  respectfully,  An  Inquirer  after  Truth.* 

The  editor  of  the  "  Universalist  coniuctofthe 

.  iditorofthe 

Magazine,"  entered  not  at  all  into      iiasizine. 
the  subject  matter,  pending  between  Prof.  Stuart 
and  the  unknown  "  Inquirer  after  Truth."     No 
one  bat  Mr.  Balfour  himself  knew  who  was  the 

*See  "  Universalist  Magazine  "  of  Feb.  19,  1820. 


58  MEMOIR   OF 

author  of  these  letters.  That  he  was  a  learned 
man,  was  evident.  He  was  not  a  Universalist, 
unless  he  misrepresented  his  own  faith  ;  he  was 
merely  in  doubt ;  and  he  was  earnestly  seeking 
to  know  the  truth.  The  editor  of  the  ••  Maga- 
zine" did  not  therefore  interfere,  at  this  early 
stage,  even  with  a  single  suggestion  or  remark. 
He  left  the  field  of  inquiry  wholly  to  the  unknown 
writer.  The  Professor  could  not  therefore  com- 
plain that  he  was  about  to  encounter  a  band  of 
Universalists.  He  had  but  one  man  to  deal  with, 
whose  name,  it  is  true,  was  not  known ;  but  who 
was  evidently  an  honest  and  fearless  "  Inquirer 
after  truth."  The  second  letter  brought  no  re- 
ply, when  the  Inquirer  issued  the  third. 

TO    MCSES    STUART, 

Associate  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Theological 
Seminary,  at  Andover.  No.  iii. 
Sir, — The  second  text  in  the  paragraph  quoted 
from  your  letters  to  Mr.  Channing,  and  on  which  I 
wish  to  make  my  remarks,  is  Rev.  v  :  8 — 14.  To  this 
text  and  your  comments  on  it  I  shall  now  turn  your 
attention.  Having  quoted  at  length  the  above  passage 
in  my  first  letter,  I  shall  here  only  transcribe  ver.  13  : 
*'  And  every  creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the 
earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  ihe  sea, 
and  all  that  are  in  ihem,  heard  I  saying,  blessing,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth 
upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  forever  and  ever." 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  sir,  that  you  have  told  us  in 
*the  paragraph  quoted  from  your  letters  in  my  first 


RRV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  59 

communicatioii,  that  "  tilings  i.  e.  beings  in  heaven, 
earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  a  common  periphrasis 
for  the  universe."  It  cannot  come  within  the  range 
of  fair  debate,  that  the  same  periphrasis  is  expressed 
in  this  verse  as  in  Phillipians  ii :  10.  the  passage  on 
which  you  give  us  this  comment.  If  there  be  any 
difference  it  is,  that  in  this  verse  the  periphrasis  is  ex- 
pressed more  fully.  Kor  is  any  room  left  for  us  to 
debate  whether  the  worship  mentioned  in  thispast:age 
be  spiiitual  and  divine.  You  express  yourself  clearly 
and  decidedly  about  this.  You  say,  "If  this  be  not 
spiritual  worship,  and  if  Christ  be  not  the  object  of  it 
here,  1  am  unable  to  produce  a  case,  where  worship 
can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine."  The  point  then  to 
be  examined  is,  how  are  we  to  understand  the  words 
every  and  all  which  occur  in  this  passage  ?  Under- 
standing these  words  in  a  universal  sense,  you  prove, 
that  every  being  in  the  universe  shall  worship  Christ, 
with  spiritual  and  divine  worship.  What  could  a 
Universalist  wish  you  to  prove  more?  But  as  you 
profess  your  belief  in  the  eternal  punishment  of  many, 
you  must  modify  or  explain  the  words  every  and  all  to 
mean  only  some.  Let  us  examine  this  matter  and  see 
how  these  words  ought  to  be  understood. 

1  think  it  will  be  frankly  conceded,  that  if  any  diffi- 
culties pressed  in  limiting  the  word  every  in  the  form- 
er passage,  the  same  difficulties  press  in  limiting  the 
words  every  and  all,  here.  Let  us  see  how  limiting 
these  words  to  some,  would  suit  in  this  passage.  'Ajid 
some  creatures  which  are  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and 
some  that  aie  in  them  heard  I  saying,  &c.'  Are  we 
then  to  understand  that  some  only  in  heaven  are  to 
worship  Je.*us?  But,  I  presume  here,  as  in  the  for- 
mer passage,  you  would  give  the  word  every  its  most 
extensive  sense  as  it  respects  creatures  in  heaven,  but 
its  limited  sense  as  it  respects  those  on  earth  and  un- 
der the  earth.     Having  remarked  on   this   arbitrary 


60  MEMOIR    OF 

mode  of  interpretation  already,  I  pass  this  over.  It 
oiio-ht  not  to  escape  observation,  that  there  seems  to 
be  something  said  in  this  text,  which  forbids  this  mode 
of  interpreting  the  words  every  and  all.  It  is  this. 
After  John  says,  '  And  every  creature  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  on  earih,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such 
as  are  in  the  sea,'  observe,  sir,  he  adds,  '  And  all  that 
are  in  them.''  John  does  not  say,  '  and  all  that  are  in 
t?,'  refeiring  to  heaven  ;  no,  but  he  says,  '  and  all  that 
are  in  them,^  referring  to  all  the  places  he  had  men- 
tioned, heaven,  earth,  under  the  earth,  and  in  the  sea. 
Does  this  look  like  limiting  the  word  every  1  or  un- 
derstanding both  in  a  limited  and  universal  sense  the 
word  every  in  the  very  same  sentence'?  This  phrase, 
'  and  all  that  are  in  them,'  instead  of  modifying  the 
word  every,  seems  to  express  with  the  more  certainty 
the  universal  sense  in  which  it  ought  to  be  understood. 
John,  instead  of  qualifying  what  he  had  just  said, rath- 
er adds  something  to  strengthen  and  confirm  it. 

But  understanding  the  words  every  and  a//,  as  only 
meaning  some,  let  us  see  what  follows  !  It  makes 
John  inform  us  twice  in  the  compass  of  one  sentence 
that  some  beings  in  the  universe  worship  Christ.  Does 
John  then  use  all  this  glowing  language,  for  no  other 
purpose  but  to  tell  us  twice,  that  some  persons  in  the 
universe  are  to  worship  him  ?  After  specifying  all 
parts  of  the  universe,  after  telling  us  every  creature 
in  them,  yea  after  adding,  '  and  all  that  are  in  them,' 
are  we  only  to  understand,  that  some  in  heaven,  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  and  in  the  sea,  shall  render  to 
him  spiritual  and  divine  worship?  It  may  be  so,  but 
your  candor  will  certainly  allow,  that  John's  languaoe 
seems  to  convey  somewhat  of  a  different  idea.  In 
your  comments  on  this  passage,  you  say  nothing  to 
.shew,  that  the  words  every  and  all,  ouffht  to  be  re- 
stricted to  some  in  the  universe.  Your  object  in  quot- 
ing it  did  not  lead  you  to  say  any  thing  about  this. 
You  quoted  it  to  prove  that  spiritual  and  divine  wor- 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  61 

ship  was  rendered  to  Christ.  But  can  we  learn  from 
the  text  with  more  certainty,  that  Christ  is  worship- 
ped at  all,  than  we  can  from  your  comments,  that  the 
universe  are  the  worshippers  1  Is  it  more  certain  from 
the  text  and  your  comment,  that  the  worship  is  spirit- 
ual and  divine,  than  that  every  creature  in  heaven,  on 
earth,  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and 
all  that  are  in  them  perform  it?  May  I  not  then  re- 
turn you  your  own  comment  on  this  passage,  witn  ihe 
following  addition  to  it :  '  If  this  be  not  spiritual  wor- 
ship and  if  Christ  be  not  the  object  of  it  here  ;  and  also 
every  creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and 
under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  thai 
are  in  them  perform  it,  I  am  unable  to  produce  a  case 
where  worship  can  be  called  spiritual  and  divine,  rtn<f 
tchere  the  universe  are  said  to  be  ic  or  shippers.''  The 
words  marked,  you  will  easily  perceive  contain  my 
addition.  I  leave  you  to  judge  if  it  be  not  a  very  ne- 
cessary addition  to  your  comment,  and  equally  sup- 
ported by  the  passage.  By  what  process  of  reason- 
ing, and  by  what  laws  of  interpretation  can  it  be  made 
fairly  out  from  this  passage,  that  every  creature  in 
heaven  worships  Christ,  which  is  only  one  part  of  the 
universe,  and  that  on  earth,  under  the  eanh,  and  in 
the  sea,  the  other  three  parts  of  the  same  universe, 
only  some  worship  him.  You  are  bound  to  explain 
why  you  limit  the  words  ei:ery  and  all  applied  to  three 
parts  of  this  universe,  and  give  them  in  the  very  same 
passage  an  unlimited  signification  when  applied  to  one 
part  of  it. 

I  am  aware,  that  it  may  be  said  by  you  and  others, 
'  Are  there  not  many  passages  of  scripture,  which 
speak  of  everlasting  punishment  to  the  wicked?  and 
what  are  these  two  which  seem  to  speak  of  universal 
salvation  when  laid  in  the  balance  with  them?'  1 
frankly  admit  this ;  but  must  say,  there  must  be  some 
way  in  which  these  opposite  texts  can  be  fairly  recon- 
ciled.    About  nothing  am  I  more  certain  than  this, 


62  MEMOIR    OF 

that  one  writer  of  scripture  never  contradicts  another, 
or  himself,  when  we  truly  understand  thenn.  In  your 
letters  to  Mr.  Channing,  you  have  told  us,  that  we  are 
not  to  adopt  rules  of  interpretation  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  the  consistency  of  the  inspired  writers  ;  that  if 
by  the  fair  rules  of  exegesis  apparent  contradictions 
cannot  be  reconciled,  the  credit  of  the  writer  must  go 
down.  Suffer  me  also  to  remind  you,  that  you  have 
also  asserted  in  your  letters  that  the  truth  of  any  doc- 
trine, does  not  depend  on  the  number  of  passages  in 
which  it  is  taught.  That  a  law  once  promulged,  is 
not  rendered  more  true  by  its  being  many  times  re- 
peated. Admitting  all  this,  and  I  do  not  see  how  it 
can  be  controverted,  let  us  simply  apply  it  to  the  case 
before  us.  If  universal  salvation  be  taught  in  the  two 
passages  on  which  I  have  been  remarking,  it  is  as 
true  as  if  it  had  been  taught  in  a  thousand.  If  there 
be  indeed  a  palpable  contradiction  between  these,  and 
other  texts,  which  speak  of  everlasting  punishment  to 
the  wicked,  there  is  no  way  left  but  to  give  up  the 
credit  of  one  or  other  of  the  writers.  Persuaded  as  I 
am,  that  this  contradiction  has  its  origin,  not  in  the  in- 
spired writers,  but  in  my  ignorance  of  the  scriptures, 
I  use  all  means  to  be  better  informed  of  their  contents. 
On  this  account  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  address 
you  for  information,  how  you  reconcile  the  paragraph 
quoted  from  your  letters,  with  your  belief  in  the  end- 
less punishment  of  any  being  in  the  universe  of  God. 
Certain  I  am,  that  you  are  in  the  possession  of  knowl- 
edge I  have  not,  consistently  to  reconcile  these  two 
things — '  That  the  universe  shall  worship  Christ  with 
spiritual  and  divine  worship,  yet  many  of  the  beings 
in  this  universe  be  eternally  miserable.'  If  you  are 
in  possession  of  such  information,  be  kind  enough  to 
communicate  it,  and  be  assured,  that  it  will  meet  with 
profound  attention  from 

Yours,  respectfully,  An  Inquirer  after  Truth.* 

*See  ♦'  Universalist  Magazine,"  March  4th,  1820. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  63 

Such  were  the  first  three  Letters  cause  and  object 

.       ,  ,  ...  of  the  first 

01  the  unknown  "Inquirer  after  three  Letters. 
Truth"  to  Prof.  Stuart.  They  were  written  to 
solicit  from  Prof.  Stuart  some  explanation,  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  would  reconcile  his 
statements  with  his  avowed  and  pledged  faith  in 
the  doctrine  of  endless  misery.  The  "  Inquirer" 
believed  that  the  Professor  was  under  obligation 
to  clear  away  his  doubts.  "  As  he  had  shaken 
my  faith  in  it,  (he  subsequently  said,)  I  thought 
I  had  some  claim  on  him  to  say  something  to 
re-establish  it. 

"  The  signature  I  assumed,  '  An  Inquirer  af- 
ter Truth,'  though  in  one  sense  fictitious,  was 
in  another  real,  for  my  letters  were  written  in 
sincerity.  I  was  anxious  to  see  where  the  truth 
lay  on  this  subject.  And  believing  as  I  had  done, 
that  Universalists  were  in  a  great  error,!  was  also 
desirous,  that  Prof.  Stuart  should  so  answer  my 
letters,  as  to  convince  them  of  it.  It  will  be  easily 
perceived  by  the  reader,  that  the  three  first  letters 
were  only  embraced  in  my  original  design." 


CHAP.   IV. 

PROF.    STUART    DECLINES  TO  ANSWER  THE  LETTERS 
OF    INQUIRER    AFTER   TRUTH. 

The  Professor       It  cannot  be  forgotten,  by  the  read- 
bound  to  support  '  •  1       1 

tua  Creed.  eF,  after  what  we  have  said,  that 
Prof.  Stuart  was  bound  to  support  the  Creed  of 
the  Andover  Institution.  We  know  not  what 
rules  of  interpretation,  what  principles  of  latitu- 
dinarianism  the  professors  have  prescribed  to 
themselves  in  the  interpretation  of  that  formula  ; 
but  one  thing  is  certain,  they  were  bound  to  sup- 
port the  Creed,  however  they  might  interpret  it, 
"  in  opposition  not  only  to  Atheists  and  Infidels., 
but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mahometans,  Arians,  So- 
cinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians  and  Universalists, 
and  to  all  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  and  modern, 
which  may  be  opposed  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  or 
hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men."  In  view  of  this 
■fact,  we  see,  in  the  first  place,  that  Prof.  Stuart 
could  make  no  concessions  to  Universalism,  even 
if  he  felt  in  conscience  bound  to  do  so,  without 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  65 

incurring  the  risk  of  losing  his  professorship. 
He  had  pledged  himself  to  oppose  Universalism; 
he  held  his  place  on  that  condition  ;  and  he  could 
not  therefore  do  any  thing  intentionally,  even  if 
he  might  do  so  conscienciously,  to  favor  that  doc- 
trine. Again,  being  bound  to  oppose  it,  he  had 
a  very  strong  reason  why  he  should  reply  to  the 
"Inquirer  after  Truth,"  and  refute  his  arguments, 
if  he  felt  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  do  so.  While 
it  would  be  the  effect  of  his  subscription  to  the 
creed,  to  prevent  his  making  concessions  in  favor 
of  Universalism,  it  would  also  naturally  spur 
him  on  to  oppose  that  doctrine,  if  he  felt  confi- 
dence in  the  arguments  which  he  might  bring 
forward  for  such  a  purpose.  How  then  are  we 
to  interpret  his  silence,  except  upon  the  presump- 
tion, that  he  felt  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  de- 
fend the  paragraph  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Channing, 
in  a  way  that  would  harmonize  with  his  own 
creed  and  satisfy  an  honest  inquirer  after  truth. 
It  was  evidently  then,  the  safest  and  easiest  for 
Prof.  Stuart,  to  treat  the  unknown  "  Inquirer"  as 
a  writer  of  mere  newspaper  articles,  and  thus  as 
unworthy  of  his  attention. 

The  •♦  Inquirer,"  at  first,  felt  but  lit- 

■"■  Inqu  rer  ur^ea 

tie  doubt  that  Prof.  Stuart  had  some       ^  "^^y- 
way  in  which  he  woul  dreconcile  his  statements 
5 


66  MEMOIR    OF 

with  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery.  He  expect- 
ed daily  some  communication  from  him,  through 
the  press,  on  this  subject ;  but  he  was  doomed  to 
disappointment.  Four  months  passed  and  noth- 
ing came.  He  then  adopted  one  more  method, 
viz.  to  address  a  letter  to  the  Professor  by  mail, 
that  he  might  be  more  certain  it  had  reached  him 
and  arrested  his  attention,  than  he  could  be,  if 
he  depended  on  the  medium  of  a  public  journaj. 
He  accordingly  sent  him  the  following  epistle. 

July  4,  1820. 
Rev.  Moses  Stuart: 

Sir, — Sometime  ago  I  addressed  several  letters  to 
you  through  the  medium  of  the  "  Universalist  Maga- 
zine." I  requested  the  numbers  to  be  sent  to  you  in 
which  these  letters  appeared.  No  reply  being  made, 
I  began  to  doubt  whether  my  request  had  been  com- 
plied with.  To  satisfy  myself,  I  made  the  inquiry  ; 
and  in  the  Magazine  of  July  1st,  the  editor  informs 
me  that  the  numbers  in  which  the  above  letters  ap- 
peared were  certainly  sent  you.  I  may  therefore  con- 
clude that  you  have  seen  these  letters,  though  you 
have  not  thought  fit  to  say  any  thing  to  relieve  my 
mind  from  the  difficulties  which  your  book  to  !Mr. 
Channing  occasioned. 

It  is  probable,  upon  reading  my  letters,  that  you 
concluded  they  were  written  by  a  Universalist,  and 
w'ere  intended  to  draw  you  into  controversy  with  them. 
I  assure  you  that  this  was  not  the  case.  1  never  knew 
what  it  was  to  be  shaken  in  my  iaith  on  this  subject 
until  I  read  your  book.  The  paragraph  on  v»hich  I 
took  the  liberty  to  remark,  struck  me  wdih  all  the 
force  I  mentioned.     My  letters  were  written  in  the 


TIEV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  67 

uprightness  and  integrity  of  my  heart,  and  with  an 
unfeigned  desire  that  you  would,  if  possible,  relieve 
my  mind  from  the  perplexity  which  you  had  occa- 
sioned. It  is  true  that  ray  letters  have  the  shape,  in 
some  places,  of  one  not  writing  to  have  doubts  re- 
movpd,  but  rather  of  one  writing  to  defend  sentiments 
most  surely  believed.  This  was  done  with  the  ex- 
press design  that  your  reply  might  be  shaped,  not 
merely  to  suit  me,  but  to  convince  the  Universalists. 
If  they  be  in  an  error,  some  means  ought  to  be  used 
to  convince  them  of  it ;  and  no  man  seems  more  ca- 
pable of  doing  it  than  yourself,  and  doing  it  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness. 

My  design  in  the  present  communication,  is  to  beg 
it  as  a  favor  that  you  would  say  something  to  relieve 
the  difficulties  of  my  mind  which  I  stated  in  my  let- 
ters. As  your  book  has  been  the  means  of  creating 
them,  I  wish  from  my  heart  that  you  may  be  the  means 
of  removing  them.  But  as  the  paragraph  on  which 
I  remarked  confirms  the  faith  of  Universalists,  if  you 
deem  them  to  be  in  error,  the  interest  of  truth  de- 
mands from  you  some  explanation.  For  my  sake,  for 
their  sake,  and  above  all  for  the  sake  of  the  truth,  I 
hope  you  will  condescend  to  do  this.  I  tremble  to 
embrace  an  error  of  any  kind.  If  my  heart  does  not 
greatly  deceive  me,  I  sincerely  desire  to  know  and 
obey  whatever  God  has  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
Had  I  been  the  means  of  shaking  your  faith  on  any 
subject  as  you  have  done  mine,  I  would  render  you 
every  assistance  in  my  power.  This  assistance  I 
earnestly  request  of  you.  I  am  fully  aware  that  from 
your  professional  and  other  duties,  you  cannot  spare 
time  to  write  largely  on  this  subject.  I  make  no  such 
demand.  All  I  wish  you  to  do  is,  in  a  brief  way  to 
afford  me  a  clue  whereby  1  may  be  led  out  of  the  dif- 
ficulties which  I  have  stated  in  my  letters.  I  simply 
wish  you  to  state  by  what  fair  rule  of  interpretation 
I  can  understand  the  Scriptures  and  your  comments 

5=^ 


68  MEMOIR   OF 

on  them  differently,  which  occasioned  my  remarks. 

Since  1  finished  my  letters  to  you,  I  have  been  ex- 
amining the  places  in  which  ta  panta  occur,  which 
you  say  means  the  universe.  It  vvill  be  an  additional 
favor  conferred  on  me  if  you  could  so  shape  your  an- 
swer as  to  relieve  similar  difficulties  arising  from  the 
following  texts  in  which  ta  panta  is  found  :  1  Cor. 
XV  :  24—29  ;  Col.  i :  16—21 ;  Heb.  ii :  6—10  ;  Eph. 
i:   10;  Phillip  iii :  21,  &c.  &c. 

Any  reply  to  my  letters  which  you  may  be  pleased 
to  make,  1  presume  will  be  admitted  into  the  Univer- 
salist  Magazine,  the  editor  of  which,  instead  of  avoid- 
ing, rather  invites  discussion.  My  only  reason  for  not 
giving  my  name,  is,  it  would  be  Ibolish  to  afford  peo- 
ple occasion  of  saying  I  had  embraced  the  doctrine  of 
Universal  Salvation,  when  I  am  only  using  every 
proper  means  to  avoid  it.  There  is  no  danger  of  my 
doing  so,  if  you  can  slate  evidence  that  the  views  ad- 
vanced in  your  letters  are  consistent  with  the  opposite 
doctrine.  If  you  cannot  do  this,  how  can  we  avoid 
being  Universalistsl 

I  have  only  to  add  that  I  esteem  your  talents  and 
character,  and  sincerely  hope  my  esteem  will  be 
increased  by  your  gratifying  my  wishes  in  this  com- 
munication. 

I  am  yours,  as  formerly,  &c., 

Am  Inquirer  after  Truth.* 

This   was   an   honest,   straieht-for- 

Character  of  '  O 

ti.a appeal.  ^^^ J ^  candid  appeal.  The  "Inquir- 
er "  assures  the  Professor  that  he  had  no  desire 
t©  draw  him  into  a  controversy ;  that  he  was 
seeking  light  and  truth  and  not  victory ;  that 
the  letters  were  written  in  the  uprightness  and 
integrity  of  his  heart,  with  the  only  desire  that 

*See  Universalist  Magazine  of  Jan.  13th,  1821.* 


REV.    WALTER   BALFOUR.  69 

the  Professor  would,  if  possible,  re-establish  his 
faith  in  the  doctrine  he  had  always  been  accus- 
tomed to  believe.  If  his  letters  sometimes  bore 
marks  as  if  written  by  a  Universalist,  they  were 
so  framed  only  that  the  Professor's  answer 
might  satisfy  the  Universalists  at  large  as  well  as 
himself.  He  then  begs,  as  a  favor,  that  the  Pro- 
fessor will  say  something  to  relieve  him  from 
his  difficulties.  This  he  felt  the  Professor  was 
bound  to  do.  Your  book  (said  the  Inquirer) 
has  been  the  means  of  creating  the  difficulties 
in  my  mind  :  "  I  wish  from  my  heart  that  you 
may  be  the  means  of  removing  them."  He  tells 
the  Professor  he  ought  to  do  this  for  the  sake  of 
Universalists,  as  well  as  for  the  sake  of  himself. 
He  does  not  call  for  much  of  the  Professor's 
time.  If  the  Professor  could  not  write  many 
letters,  write  one.  If  he  could  not  write  a  long 
article,  write  a  short  one.  "  All  I  wish  you  to 
do  is,  in  a  brief  way  to  afford  me  a  clue,  where- 
by I  may  be  led  out  of  the  difficulties  which  I 
have  stated  in  my  letters."  But  all  this  was  of 
no  avail ;  Professor  Stuart  made  no  reply.  He 
had  plunged  the  Inquirer  into  doubt,  and  there 
he  left  him. 

The  Inquirer  waited  five  months  to  in^^^rer  waits 
get  a  reply  to   the  preceding  candid   ^'^^^^^f^^- 


70  MEMOIR    OF 

and  earnest  appeal;  but  he  waited  in  vain.  He 
then  determined  on  the  publication  of  his  pri- 
vate letter  to  Professor  Stuart,  which  he  sent  to 
the  editor  of  the  Magazine  for  that  purpose,  in- 
timating that  he  was  not  ashamed  to  persevere 
in  his  inquiries  after  truth.  He  had,  during  the 
Professor's  silence,  given  his  Letters  to  Chan- 
ning  a  re-perusal ;  and  this  would  lead  to  a  few 
more  letters,  which  he  should  publish.  He  had 
nearly  abandoned  the  hopes  before  cherished 
tliat  he  should  get  any  light  from  the  Professor, 
and  he  most  sincerely  requested  any  other  per- 
son to  grant  him  the  favor  which  the  Professor 
declined  to  give,  and  save  him  from  error,  if  he 
were  in  danger  of  going  into  it.  "I  shall,"  said 
he,  "  esteem  the  m.an  who  does  this  my  best 
friend." 

iBquir.r  . rit.s  ^"^  light  camc.  The  Inquirer  de- 
a  fifth  Leuer.  ^epj^^i^ed  to  pursuc  ihis  sLibject  faith- 
fully. If  Universalism  was  the  truth,  (contrary 
to  all  his  former  expectations  and  faith,)  he  was 
determined  to  know  it.  He  sought  the  truth  on- 
ly, and  above  all  things  the  true  sense  of  the 
word  of  God.  His  subsequent  letters  were  oc- 
casioned by  observing  things  in  Professor  Stu- 
art's book  which  he  had  not  seen  at  first,  and  by 
his  own  investigations  of  the  meaning  of  certain 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  71 

Greek  phrases.^^  His  doubts  of  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  of  endless  misery  became  more  and 
more  increased.     The   Inquirer  commenced  his 

fifth  letter  as  follows  : 

♦ 

February  3,  1821. 
Dear  Sir, — It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  1  again 
address  you.  I  fondly  hoped  that  you  would  have 
answered  my  former  letters,  and  removed  my  difficul- 
ties. This  you  have  not  condescended  to  do.  Since 
I  finished  these  letters,  I  have  thought  considerable  on 
the  subject  of  them.     1  have  also  given  your  letters  a 

*"The  others  were  occasioned  by  observing  other  things 
in  Prof.  Stuart's  book,  and  my  own  investigations  of 
some  Greek  phrases  which  he  had  explained.  In  investi- 
gating the  scriptural  sense  of  these  phrases,  my  doubts 
were  increased  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  This  made  me  still  more  anxious  that  he 
should  come  forward  with  some  explanation. 

The  last  of  the  three  first  letters  was  published  in  the 
Magazine  for  March  4th,  1820,  to  which  Mr.  Stuart  made 
no  reply  whatever.  After  waiting  until  the  4th  of  July 
for  some  explanation  on  the  subject,  I  wrote  him  by  mail, 
urging  him  to  do  this.  After  waiting  several  months, 
and  still  no  reply  being  made,  I  sent  the  copy  of  this  let- 
ter to  the  editor  of  the  Magazine  for  publication.  The 
remaining  letters  of  the  whole  series  soon  followed,  as 
their  dates  show.  At  last  Mr.  Stuart  condescended  to 
write  a  brief  note,  declining  all  compliance  with  my  ur- 
gent requests  for  an  explanation.  This  note  will  be  giv- 
en in  its  proper  place.  The  reader  can  judge  whether 
his  professed  reasons  for  declining  all  explanation  are  sat- 
isfactory. In  his  letter  he  blames  me  for  not  giving  my 
real  name,  and  seeking  a  private  interview  with  him  for 
my  own  satisfaction.  My  reasons  for  declining  this  are 
given  in  the  letters,  and  of  them  the  reader  can  also 
judge." 


72  MEMOIR    OF 

second  perusal ;  but  instead  of  my  difficulties  being  di- 
minished, they  have  increased.  Permit  me  in  as  brief 
a  way  as  possible  to  state  these,  still  hoping  that  you 
or  some  one  else  will  condescend  satisfactorily  to  re- 
move them. 

# 
The..co.cniauon       The  Iiiquirer  then  proceeds  to 

of  an  things.          ^^^j^g    ^^^    ^^^^^    ^^^^   p^^|.^    g^^^^^ 

had  repeatedly  asserted  that  ta  panta  signified 
the  entire  Universe  which  God  had  created.  He 
then  consulted  those  places  in  the  Scriptures,  in 
which  that  phrase  occurs.  And  first,  Col.  i.  15 — 
17 — '*  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God, 
the  first-born  of  every  creature  ;  for  by  him  were 
all  things  (ta  panta,  the  universe)  created,  that 
are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  on  earth,  visible 
or  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  domin- 
ions, or  principalities,  or  powers;  all  things  (ta 
panta,  the  universe)  were  created  by  him,  and 
for  him.  And  he  is  before  all  things  (panton) 
and  by  him  all  things  (ta  panta,  the  universe) 
consist.  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the 
church;  who  is  the  beginning,  the  first-born 
from  the  dead;  that  in  all  things  (pason)  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence.  For  it  pleased 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  (pan)  fulness 
dwell ;  and  having  made  peace  through  the 
blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things 
(ta  panta,  the  universe)  unto  himself;  by  him  I 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  73 

say,  whether  they  be  things  on  earth,  or  things 
in  heaven." 

The  ground  taken  by  the  Inquirer  in  regard 
to  this  verse,  and  defended  at  some  length,  was, 
that  it  was  the  same  universe  which  God  had 
created  that  is  to  be  reconciled  through  and  by 
Jesus  Christ.  The  same  universe  [ta  panto)  is 
spoken  of  in  both  cases ;  the  phraseology  is  the 
same,  both  in  the  Greek  text  and  English  ver- 
sion ;  and  if  the  Professor  held  that  all  things  in 
the  unlimited  sense  were  created  by  Jesus  Christ 
[as  God],  then  should  we  not  conclude  they 
would  be  reconciled  by  him  ?  This  argument 
Prof.  Stuart  never  did  answer;  and  it  is  not  pre- 
sumptive to  say,  he  never  could  have  answered 
it  satisfactorily,  without  abandoning  the  creed 
which  he  had  bound  himself  to  defend.  The 
Inquirer  also  referred  him  to  Phillip  ii.,  10 — 
"  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  These  phrases  Prof. 
Stuart  had  avowed  were  a  periphrasis  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  for  the  universe,  and  the 
inquirer  showed  that  Dr.  Campbell,  in  his  Pre- 
liminary Dissertations  (Dis.  vi.,  Part  ii..  Sec.  6,] 


74  MEMOIR    OF 

explained  them  "  to  include  the  whole  rational 
creation."     On  this  the  "  Inquirer  "  remarked  : 

*•  What  more  pray  remains  to  be  reconciled  or  sub- 
dued to  God  than  the  universe,  the  worlds  material 
and  immaterial,  or  the  whole  rational  creation?  That 
something  in  Scripture  very  like  this  is  to  be  found, 
has  been  shown  in  my  foimer  letters,  from  Phillip,  ii : 
10,  11,  and  Rev.  v  :  13.  Your  own  concessions  and 
explanations  of  these  two  texts,  and  the  one  under 
consideration,  would  lead  one  to  think  that  you  be- 
lieved universal  salvation  to  be  a  Scripture  doctrine. 
Certainly,  nothing  that  I  have  ever  seen  from  the 
pen  of  a  Universalist,  is  half  so  convincing  to  me  as 
what  you  and  Dr.  Campbell  have  conceded  or  said  on 
this  subject." 

Not  fully  a  After  pursuing  and  illustrating  this 
Universalist.  argument  at  some  considerable  length, 
the  Inquirer  drew  his  fifth  letter  to  Prof.  Stuart 
to  a  close.  He  had  not  come  to  regard  the  Uni- 
versalists  with  full  favor.  He  rather  felt  that 
the  Professor  had  somewhat  degraded  himself 
by  thus  becoming  an  auxiliary  in  building  up 
the  doctrine  of  Universalism  ;  but  still  he  had 
too  much  honesty  and  love  of  truth  to  flinch 
from  his  inquiries,  even  if  they  should  lead  him 
to  embrace  that  doctrine. 

"  To  conclude  this  communication,  1  would  observe 
that  it  is  vain  for  us  to  pretend  that  in  the  above  re- 
marks there  is  no  force.  I  aver  that  no  man  capable 
of  reading   them  and   of  putting  two  ideas  together, 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  75 

can  help  feeling  their  force.  1  have  freely  confessed 
the  force  they  have  on  my  mind  ;  and  I  call  upon  you 
to  show  me  ray  error,  if  you  are  able,  by  reconciling 
these  statements  with  the  idea  of  limited  salvation. 
Until  you  or  some  one  else  shall  do  this,  I  should  sin- 
fully abuse  the  faculties  God  has  given  me,  and  lie 
with  my  lips  to  deny  that,  this  passage  has  at  least 
the  appearance  of  proving,  that  it  pleased  the  Father 
by  Jesus  Christ  to  reconcile  the  universe,  or  whole 
rational  creation  to  himself.  If  I  am  really  mistaken, 
one  thing  is  certain,  Dr.  Campbell  and  yourself  have 
been  the  instruments  of  leading  me  into  it,  by  your 
becoming  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  to 
the  Universalists.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  1  have 
misunderstood  or  misrepresented  either  of  you.  I 
have  only  shown  that  the  statements  you  have  made 
fairly  involve  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  the  uni- 
verse, or  whole  rational  creation.  If  you  can  show 
their  consistency  with  the  contrary  doctrine,  no  man 
in  the  universe  will  be  more  obliged  than  yours,* 
An  Inquirer  after  Truth." 

Sixth  Letter. 
In  the  sixth  letter,  the  "  Inquirer  "  still  con- 
tinues his  effort  to  learn  the  Scriptural  use  of 
the  phrase  ta  panta.  The  next  passage  which 
he  brought  forward  was  1  Cor.  xv :  24,  28 — 
"  Then  Cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  de- 
livered up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all 
authority  and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  he 
hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.     The  last 

*Universali3t  Magazine — ii :  121,  122. 


76  MEMOIR   OP 

enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death.  For  he 
hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But  when  he 
saith,  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest 
that  he  is  excepted  which  did  put  all  things  {ta 
panta,  the  universe)  under  him.  And  when  all 
things  {ta  panta,  the  universe)  shall  be  subdued 
unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  sub- 
ject unto  him,  that  did  put  all  things  {ta  panta^ 
the  universe)  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all." 
The  eubiection      On   this  thc   Inoulrer  submits  a 

of  all  things 

to  Christ,  series  of  very  mterestmg  remarks. 
He  sees  here  the  proofs  of  the  subjection  of  the 
whole  moral  universe  to  Christ.  He  dwells  on 
the  point  at  some  length. 

"  This  passage  demands  particular  attention.  1 
hope  1  shall  he  excused  in  being  somewhat  minute  in 
my  examination  of  it. 

Let  it  then  be  observed,  Sir,  that  '  ta  panta,*  which 
you  say  means  '  the  universe,^  occurs  three  times.  To 
you  it  is  superfluous  to  add,  that  it  also  occurs  several 
times  in  a  form  equivalent  to  ta  panta.  Let  us  go  over 
in  order  the  things  mentioned  in  this  passage. 

It  is  said,  '  Then  cometh  the  end.'  The  question 
naturally  occurs  here, — The  end  of  what  1  I  presume 
it  is  generally  allowed  to  be  the  end  of  Christ's  reign. 
If  the  question  be  asked, — His  reign  over  what?  The 
answer  from  the  passage  plainly  is,  his  reign  over  the 
kingdom  which  he  is  to  deliver  up  to  God,  even  the 
Father.  But  let  us  ask  again, — When  shall  the  end 
comel  The  passage  answers:  '  When  he  shall  have 


REV.    "WALTER    BALFOUR.  77 

delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father.' 
But  let  us  ask  again, — What  is  to  be  accomplished  by 
Christ  before  this  end  comes  ?  The  passage  answers  : 
The  kingdom  shall  not  be  delivered  up,  and  the  end 
come,  until  '  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all 
authority  and  power;  for  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath 
put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.'  And  of  these  ene- 
mies the  last  to  be  destroyed  '  is  death.'  But  the 
apostle  proceeds,  *  for  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet.'  It  is  necessary  to  notice  here  what  the  snme 
apostle  says,  Heb.  ii.  8 — 9,  'But  now  we  see  not  yet 
all  things  {ta  parUathe  universe)  put  under  him  ;  but 
w^e  see  Jesus  who  was  made  a  little  lower  (for  a  little 
time  lower)  than  the  angels,  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor,'  &c.  Compare  Phillip,  ii.  9,  10,  11.  It  is 
true  even  m  our  day,  that  wc  see  not  yet  all  things 
put  under  Christ,  that  is,  actually  subdued  to  him, yet 
we  know  that  he  is  exalted  for  this  purpose,  and  the 
apostle  assures  us,  that — '  he  must  reign  till  he  hath 
put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.'  Ta  panta,  the  uni- 
verse was  put  under  him  by  the  Father  to  be  subdued, 
and  when  this  is  fully  accomplished,  then  shall  the 
Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him  ihat  put  all 
things  under  hrm,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.  But 
there  are  some  things  in  the  passage  which  demand  a 
distinct  and  more  enlarged  consideration  " 

The  Inquirer  then  proceeds  to  notice  the  ex- 
tent of  the  promised  subjection  to  Christ.  Ta 
pania,  according  to  the  Professor,  meant  the  uni- 
verse ;  it  is  the  universe  which  Christ  had  crea- 
ted. Can  it  be  said  that  ta  panta  meant  the 
whole  universe  when  Christ  was  said  to  create 
it,  and  only  a  part  when  it  was  said  he  will  bring 
it  into  subjection  ?     "  So  long  (said  the  Inquirer 


MEMOIR   OF 

to  the  Professor)  as  you  maintain  that  ta  panta 
means  the  whole  universe  when  Christ  is  said  to 
create  it,  so  long  you  must  expect  the  Universal- 
ist  to  maintain  that  it  means  the  whole  universe 
when  he  is  said  to  subdue  it."  Again  the  In- 
quirer laid  down  the  following  rule  : 

"  When  exceptions  are  made  to  a  general  subject, 
all  not  excepted  are  allowed  to  be  included.  Observe 
then,  that  there  is  one,  and  only  oue  exception  made 
b)'  the  apostle  in  the  passage  about  tapanta,  the  uni- 
verse, being  subdued  to  Christ.  This  is  God  himself. 
He  says,  '  But  when  he  saith  all  things  (ta  panta,  the 
universe)  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is 
excepted  which  did  put  all  things  under  him.'  Can 
you  prove  that  there  are  other  exceptions^  Can  you 
refer  us  to  other  texts  in  which  some  more  exceptions 
are  made  1  Be  pleased  to  say  in  what  other  part  of 
the  Bible  they  are  to  be  found.  But  as  if  even  this  was 
not  enough,  the  apostle  says,  that  Christ  is,  to  '  put 
down  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power.'  Yea, 
that  '  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under 
his  feet ;'  and  that  '  the  last  enemy  that  shall  be  de- 
stroyed is  death.'  Besides,  to  shew  the  ultimate  and 
complete  nature  of  this  subjection,  the  apostle  says, 
'  And  when  all  thing's  {ta  panta,  the  universe)  shall  be 
subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  son  also  himself  be 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  undor  him,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to 
shew,  what,  after  all  ihis  is  done,  yet  remains  in  the 
universe  to  be  subdued  1  How  shall  all  things,  or  the 
universe,  be  subdued  unto  Christ,  and  yet  a  great  part 
of  it  still  remain  in  rebellion  1  And  how  shall  God  be 
all  in  all,  if  this  be  the  truth?  How  is  it.  that  the 
last  enemy  which  is  to  be  destroyed  is  death,  and  yet 
millions   of   the   human    race   remain   forever  under 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  79 

the  power  of  the  second  death  1  Do,  my  dear  Sir, 
explain  how  the  universe  is  to  be  subdued  and  put  un- 
der Christ's  feet,  and  yet  that  the  greater  half  of  the 
children  of  men  are  to  remain  in  rebellion  and  misery 
to  the  endless  ages  of  eternity  ?" 

The  subjection        Having"  thus  requested  the  Pro- 
of  tne    universe  ... 

is  voluntary,  fessor  to  noticG  the  important  argu- 
ments which  had  occurred  to  his  mind,  as  above 
described,  the  Inquirer  proceeds  to  show,  that  this 
universal  subjection  (or  subjection  of  ta  panta, 
the  universe)  would  be  a  loving  and  willing  sub- 
jection. 

"  The  important  question  at  issue  here  is,  are  we  to 
understand  this  subjection  a  forced  or  willing  subjec- 
tion 1  Is  it  constrained  by  force  or  fear,  or  is  it  the  ef- 
fect of  love  ?  Does  it  consist  in  the  universe  being 
subdued,  yet  rebels  still  at  heart?  or  does  it  consist  in 
all  being  made  loving  and  obedient  subjects  1  I  have 
used  some  pains  to  examine  this  point  with  care  and 
impartiality,  and  shall  lay  before  you  the  result  of  my 
investigations. 

*'  1st.  Then,  I  attempted  to  understand  the  subjec- 
tion mentioned,  a  constrained  subjection,  but  could 
find  nothing  m  the  meaning  of  the  original  word,  or 
circumstances  mentioned,  nor  in  the  scope  of  the  wri- 
ter to  suppoit  this  view.  If  any  thing  of  this  nature 
is  contained  in  the  passage,  it  has  escaped  my  observ- 
ation. 2d.  I  next  attempted  to  understand  the  sub- 
jection, as  partly  constrained  and  partly  of  love,  know- 
ing that,Christ  is  at  least  to  have  some  loving  and  obe- 
dient subjects.  I  found  this  view  would  not  suit  any 
better  than  tlie  former.  I  could  find  nothing  to  justify 
it,  but  much  to  condemn  it,  as  shall  presently  appear. 
The  subjection  I  saw,  must  be  understood  eittier  as 
universally  constrained,  or  universally  of  love." 


80  MEMOIR    OF 

The  Inquirer  then  proceeds  to 

Voluntary  subjection  ^  '■ 

furtner considered,  confcss,  that  It  seemcd  to  him, 
the  subjection  must  be  considered  to  be  a  volun- 
tary, obedient  and  loving  one. 

*'  1st.  It  is  the  subjection  of  {ta  panta,  the  universe) 
and  this  sabjection  is  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole 
passage  as  of  the  same  nature  or  kind.  Jt  is  the  uni- 
verse which  is  to  be  subdued,  and  no  distinction  is 
made  about  different  kinds  of  subjection.  No  hint  is 
given  that  some  shall  be  subdued  by  force,  and  others 
by  love.  The  universe  is  put  under  Christ  to  be  sub- 
dued, and  all  are  spoken  of  as  partakers  of  the  same 
kind  of  subjection.  If  the  subjection  is  constrained,  it 
must  be  so  to  all ;  and  if  we  understand  it  of  love,  it 
must  be  so  to  all.  That  this  subjection  is  a  willing 
subjection,  or  of  love,  may  be  inferred,  2d.  From  the 
•ame  original  word  expressing  the  subjection  of  the 
universe  to  Christ,  and  Christ's  subjection  to  the  Fa- 
ther. No  man  for  a  moment  hesi:ates  to  admit,  when 
it  is  said, '  then  shall  the  Son  also  be  subject  unto  him 
that  put  all  things  under  him,'  that  this  subjection  is 
voluntary  and  ot  love.  For  what  good  reason  then 
ought  we  to  understand  it  otherwise,  when  the  very 
same  word  expresses  the  subjection  of  the  universe  to 
Christ?  Consistency  and  candor  require,  that  we  un- 
derstand the  subjection  in  both  either  to  be  constrain- 
ed, or  in  both  voluntary,  for  the  apostle  considered  the 
same  word  a  correct  expression  for  both." 

^.   ,.  The  Inquirer  then   went   at 

Voluntary  subjection  *■ 

further  considered,  jgngth  into  an  cxamlttation  of 
the  scripture  usage  of  the  words  rendered,  sub- 
ject and  subdue  ;  and  the  result  to  which  he  came 
was,  that "  in  few  or  none  of  the  places  where  it 
occurs,  can   it  be  supposed  that  a  constrained 


REV.     WALTER   AALFOUR.  81 

subjection  is  meant."  It  is  used  to  signify  the 
subjection  of  Christ  to  the  Father;  of  the  uni- 
verse to  Christ ;  of  christians  to  God,  to  Christ, 
to  his  gospels,  to  civil  rulers  ;  of  wives  to  their 
husbands  ;  of  children  to  their  parents  ;  of  youth 
to  the  aged,  &:c.  &c. 

But  the  Inquirer  takes  away  from  the  Profes- 
sor all  opportunity  of  saying  that  the  subjection 
of  the  universe,  or  of  any  part  thereof  to  Christ, 
was  forced,  and  not  voluntary,  by  urging  upon 
his  consideration  the  fact,  that  he  himself  had 
stated,  very  clearly  and  forcibly,  not  only  that  the 
universe  shall  worship  Christ,  but  that  they  shall 
worship  spiritually,  and  after  the  very  model 
which  heaven  itself  furnishes.  "  What  can  be 
meant  [said  the  Professor,  as  if  nothing  else 
could  by  any  possibility  be  meant]  by  things  in 
heaven,  i.  e.  beings  in  heaven,  bowing  the  knee 
to  Jesus,  if  spiritual  loorship  be  not  meant  ? 
What  other  ivorship  can  heaven  render  ? "  And 
again,  ''  If  this  be  not  spiritual  worship,  I  am 
unable  to  produce  a  case,  where  worship  can  be 
called  spiritual  and  divine."  The  argument  is 
complete.  It  makes  thorough  work.  It  drives 
the  nail  entirely  through  and  clinches  it.  And 
therefore  the  Inquirer  said,  in  closing  his  sixth 

letter,  he  could  see  no  way  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
6 


82  MEMOIR  OF 

that  Christ  should  continue  to  reign,  until  God 
had  put  all  things  under  his  feet ;  and  when  all 
things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the 
Son  himself  be  subject  unto  God,  that  God  may 
be  ALL  IN  ALL. 

The  Inquirer  Clearly  as  this  doctrine  seemed  to 
•tiucauu.ms.^j^g  luquirer  to  be  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, he  was  very  cautious  about  giving  him- 
self up  to  a  full  belief  of  it.  He  w^as  cautious 
and  doubtful.  How  did  he  know  that  the  Pro- 
fessor had  not  some  way  in  which  he  could  set 
all  these  arguments  aside  ?  But  if  he  had,  he 
ought  to  show  it.  The  Inquirer  w^as  willing  to 
wait  patiently,  and  in  the  mean  time  to  pursue 
his  inquiries. 

Seventh  Letter. 
In  one  fortnight  from  the   appearance  of  the 
sixth  letter,  came  out  the  seventh.     It  pursued 
the  same  subject,  viz.,    an   examination  of  the 
passages  in  which  ta  panta  occurs. 

Sir, — The  next  passage  to  which  I  shall  call  your 
attention  is,  Heb.  ii :  8 — "  Thou  hast  put  all  things 
in  subjection  under  his  feet.  For  in  that  he  put  all 
[ta  panta  the  universe)  in  subjection  under  him  ;  he 
left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under  him.  But  now  we 
see  not  yet  all  things  {ta  panta  the  universe)  put  un- 
der him."  You  will  readily  perceive  \\\^X  ta  panta^ 
which  you  explain  to  mean  the  universe,  occurs  at 
least  twice  in  this  text. 


REV.    WALTER    FBAFOUR.  83 

The  Inquirer  shows  that  ta  pari'  subiection  of  the 

entire  Universe 

ta  signifies  here  unquestionably  ^^"^«r  considered, 
the  universe.  In  verse  7  the  Apostle  says, — 
"  thou  didst  set  him  (Christ)  over  the  works  of 
thy  hands,"  i.  e.,  the  works  which  God  had  cre- 
ated, or  the  universe.  "  He  left  nothing-  that  is 
not  under  him;"  as  expressed  in  1  Cor,  xv. 
God  alone  is  excepted.  This  proves  the  full  and 
complete  subjection  of  the  universe  to  Christ  in 
God's  time.  It  is  not  now  fully  done.  "  But 
now  we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under  him," 
Heb.  ii :  8 — but  every  preparation  hath  been 
made  by  the  Father  to  bring  about  this  sublime 
purpose.  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels,  that  he  might  suffer  death,  was 
crowned  with  glory  and  honor,  that  he,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  might  taste  death  for  every  man. 
Heb.  ii :  9.  And  at  last  all  the  universe,  God 
alone  excepted,  shall  be  subject  unto  him.  Hav- 
ing shown  these  points,  the  Inquirer  (seeing  more 
clearly,  as  he  proceeds,  the  Scriptural  evidence 
of  Universalism,)  addresses  the  Professor  in  the 
following  pungent  terms : 

*'  Suffac  me  to  ask,  how  yoii  can  avail  yourself  of 
ta  panta  as  signifying  the  universe  when  Christ  is  said 
to  be  the  Creator  of  it,  and  deny  this  liberty  to  the 
Universalists,  when  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  or  sub- 
due it]  By  what  rational  means  do  you  slide,  or  rath- 
er 


84  ,  MEMOIR    OF 

er  leap  over  this  difficulty  ?  Perhaps  it  did  not  occur 
to  you  in  the  heat  of  the  controversy  with  Mr.  Chan- 
ning,  what  use  might  be  made  of  your  explanation  of 
tapanta,  as  meaning  the  universe,  to  establish  uni- 
versal salvation.  I  think  you  cannot  but  feel  the  ne- 
cessity undei  which  your  explanation  of  ia  panta  has 
laid  you,  to  come  forward  and  own  yourself  a  Uni- 
versalist,  or  rationally  and  Scripturally  to  state,  how 
you  reconcile  your  explanation  with  your  limited 
views  of  salvation.  Unless  this  is  done,  I  must  think 
your  weapon,  forged  for  Mr.  Channing,  has  wounded 
yourself.  Supposing  in  the  passages  1  have  brought 
to  your  view,  you  should  come  forward  and  teil  us, 
that  ta  panta  only  means  a  part  of  the  universe,  would 
not  Mr.  Channing  smile  to  s^e  you  thus  do  away  all 
the  torce  of  your  argument  against  him.  Unless  you 
admit  that  ta  panta  means  the  universe  when  Christ 
is  said  to  subdue  or  reconcile  it,  how  can  you  look 
Mr.  Channing  in  the  face  and  maintain,  that  it  means 
this  when  he  is  said  to  create  it.  You  know  this  is 
the  strongest  argument  in  your  book  to  prove  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ  against  him  ;  but  you  must  relinquish 
it,  or  admit  universal  salvation.  You  are  too  shrewd 
a  man  not  to  perceive  the  force  of  this  statement,  and 
I  hope  too  candid  and  honorable  to  refuse  some  ex- 
planation. I  cannot  certainly  say  but  you  may  be 
able  to  show  how  your  explanations  are  consistent 
with  limited  salvation,  but  certainly  I  cannot  perceive 
how  it  can  be  done.     I  want  information." 

Here  we  think  the  Inquirer  hit 

True  cause  of  tnc  a 

Professors  silence.    ^^     ^^i^     ^^^^     eXpknation    of     PlO- 

fessor  Stuart's  remarkable  paragraph  in  his  Let- 
ters to  Dr.  Channing.  *'  Perhaps  it  did  not  oc- 
cur to  you  in  the  heat  of  the  controversy  with 
Mr.  Channing,  what  use  might  be  made  of  your 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  85 

explanation  of  tapanta,  as  meaning  the  universe, 
to  establish  universal  salvation."  This  was  un- 
questionably true.  The  statement  of  the  Pro- 
fessor was  the  honest  conception  of  his  under- 
standing, at  a  time  when  the  doctrine  of  endless 
misery  was  not  in  his  thoughts.  After  having 
made  such  a  concession,  what  was  he  to  do  ? 
He  could  do  only  one  of  three  things,  viz :  1st. 
Acknowledge  himself  a  Universalist.  If  ia  pan- 
ta  means  the  universe — all  things,  all  the  intel- 
ligent creation — and  if  all  the  intelligent  crea- 
tion shall  at  last  worship  Jesus,  with  spiritual 
and  divine  worship,  with  just  such  worship  as 
heaven  renders,  then  universal  salvation  must 
ensue.  But  as  the  Professor  could  not  acknowl- 
edge himself  a  Universalist  without  losing  his 
place,  he  was  obliged  2d,  to  show,  if  he  could, 
that  his  premises  might  be  true,  and  yet  the  doc- 
trine of  Universalism  not  ensue.  But  this  was 
an  utter  impossibility.  If  Prof.  Stuart  was  cor- 
rect in  his  premises,  the  doctrine  of  endless  mis- 
ery must  be  false,  and  the  doctrine  of  Universal- 
ism must  be  true.  Then  8d,  if  Prof.  Stuart 
could  not,  from  any  cause,  adopt  either  of  the 
foregoing  courses,  there  was  nothing  for  him  to 
do  but  to  shut  himself  up  in  silence  ;  and  that 
he  did.     And  in  these  facts,  vre  think  we  have 


86 


MEMOIR    ^F 


the  true  view  of  his  case,  the  true  cause  of  his 
silence. 

Gathering  together  The  "  Inquiier  "  proceeded  next, 
all tmngs  .a  Christ.  -^  ^ontinuing  his  seventh  epistle, 

to  notice  Eph.  i :  10 — in  which  ta  panta  occurs: 

"  The  next  passage  to  which  T  invite  your  attention, 
is  Eph.  i :  10 — '  That  in  the  dispensation  of  ihr  full- 
ness of  times,  he  nuipht  gather  together  in  one  all 
things,  ta  pania,  the  universe.,  in  Christ,  both  which 
are  in  heaven,  and  which  are  on  earth  ;  even  in  him.' 
Notice  again,  sir,  that  the  all  things  here,  as  in  the  for- 
mer passages,  is  ta  fanta^  the  universe.  The  person 
in  whom  the  all  things,  or  universe  is  to  be  gathered 
together,  is  expressly  said  to  be  Christ  ;  and  by  w  hom 
the  all  things  are  to  be  gathered  together  in  him,  we 
learn  from  verses  3,  8,  of  the  chapter." 

The.ath.nn,ofau      ^hc  followittg  Temaiks  of  the 

farther  considered.   .,jj^q^.j.^j.„     ^^^      ^^^    important   tO 

be  omitted.  He  shows  that  this  gathering  togeth- 
er, spoken  of  by  Paul,  has  respect  to  the  whole 
moral  universe,  and  that  it  is  the  reconciliation 
of  all  to  God  and  Christ: 

"  In  reference  to  the  subject  before  ns,  there  are 
two  things  which  demand  particular  attention  : 

"  1st.  What  is  to  be  understood  by  the  gathering 
in  one  all  things  in  Christ?  Let  it  then  he  noticed, 
that  tlie  Apostle  not  only  says,  that  it  is  ta  panta 
(which  you  say  means  the  universe)  which  is  to  be 
gathered  together  in  Christ,  but  he  adds,  '  both  which 
are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth  even  in  him.' 
1  must  again  remind  you,  that  '  things  in  heaven  and 
things  on  earth,'  you  say,  '  is  a  common  periphrasis 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  87 

of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  writers  for  the  universe.' 
The  Apostle  then,  by  your  own  explanation,  makes 
this  matter  doubly  sure.  He  first  gives  us  ta  panta, 
the  universe,  and  then  the  common  periphrasis  of  it. 
You  have,  then,  by  your  own  comments,  placed  this 
matter  beyond  fair  debate,  thai  the  universe,  in  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  fullness  of  tunes,  is  to  be  gathered 
together  in  one  in  Christ. 

"  But  let  us  consider  what  ought  to  be  understood 
by  this  gathering  together.  1  presume  it  will  not  be 
disputed  that  this  gathering  together  is,  for  substance, 
the  same  thing,  as  is  expressed  in  1  Cor.  xv  :  24,  28, 
by  Christ's  subduing  all  things  to  himself.  And  the 
same  as  is  expressed  in  Col,  i :  20,  by  his  reconciling 
all  things  to  himself,  or  to  take  your  own  comment  on 
this  last  text,  by  gathering  together  all  things  in 
Christ,  '  seems  evidently  to  be  meant,  bringing  into 
union,  under  one  great  head,  i.  e.,  Christ,  bv  a  new 
and  special  bond  of  intercommunication,  both  angels 
and  men.'  The  subject,  the  circumstances,  and  the 
language  in  all  these  texts,  are  so  much  the  same  that 
they  need  only  to  be  read,  and  your  comment  ought 
to  be  admitted. 

The  "  Inquirer  "  maintains,  that    ^^^  ^^^^  ,^^^^,, 
it  is  the  same  moral  subjection  to  ^^"^^^  =°^^^'^er«'^' 
Christ,  which  is  insisted  on  by  the  great  apostle, 
in  1  Cor.  xv :  24,  28,  and  Heb.  ii .  8,  and  that  it 
is,  not  a  forced,  but  a  willing  subjection. 

"  I  cannot  forbear  noticing  here,  that  if  any  further 
evidence  was  needed  to  prove,  that  the  subjection  to 
Christ,  1  Cor.  xv :  24,  28,  and  Heb.  ii :  8,  was  a  vol- 
untary subjection,  a  conclusive  argument  seems  to  be 
furnished  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Do  you 
ask  what  this  is?  It  is  this,  that  the  gathering  spok- 
en of,  is  a  gathering  together^  and  a  gathering  togeih- 


88  MEMOIR    OF 

er  in  one,  yea,  a  gathering  together  in  one  all  things, 
or  the  universe,  in  Christ.  According  to  the  common 
faith,  which  I  presume  you  believe  and  preach,  so  far 
from  tlie  wicked  being  gathered  in  Christ,  and  gath- 
ered together  in  one  in  him  with  the  righteous,  they 
are  to  be  separated  from  them  forever.  But  accord- 
ing to  the  apostle,  and  even  according  to  yourself,  the 
universe  is  to  be  gathered  together  again  and  re-united 
under  one  head,  Christ,  Surely  with  no  propriety  can 
it  be  said,  that  the  wicked  and  righteous  are  gathered 
together  in  one  in  Christ,  if  this  is  not  voluntary. 
What  kind  of  re  union  could  it  be  of  the  universe  in 
him,  if  the  greater  part  is  to  remain  in  eternal  rebel- 
lion against  God?  It  must  be  a  strange  special  bond 
of  intercommunication,  by  which  such  different  beings 
are  held  together.  How  the  wicked,  in  misery  for- 
ever, can  be  said  to  be  in  Christ,  and  gathered  togeth- 
er, yea,  re-unilecl  in  him  with  the  rest  of  the  universe, 
I  must  leave  you  to  explain,  for  it  is  beyond  my  com- 
prehension. 

The  re.titnticn      ^^^  drawkig  his  SGveiith  letter  to  a 
ofaiuhings,     ^.JQse,  the   "Inquirer"   takes  up  the 
language  of  Peter,  Acts  iii:  21,  which  contained 
the  Greek  word  pas  in  one  of  its  forms. 

•'Acts  iii :  20,  21 — 'And  he  shall  send  Jesus  Christ, 
which  before  was  preached  unto  you  ;  whom  the 
heavens  must  receive  until  the  times  of  restitution  of 
all  things,  panton,  which.  God  hath  spoken  by  the 
mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began.' 
I  need  nut  inform  you  ih^X,  panton,  in  this  passage,  as 
in  Heb.  i:  1,  14,  is  equivalent  to  ta  panta,  the  uni- 
verse." 

The  Inquirer  contended  that  the  restitution 
was  the  settling  of  all  things,  like  the  restoring 


KRV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  OXf 

of  society  to  order,  after  wars  and  tumults. 
Such  is  the  definition  which  Raphelius  gives  the 
word,  according  to  Parkhurst,  and  this  goes  far 
to  win  the  Inquirer's  mind  over  to  Universalism, 

"  This  learned  and  accurate  critic  shows  that  Po- 
lybius  applies  the  word  in  this  view,  comparing  1 
Cor.  XV  :  24,  25.  If  this  person,  whom  Parkhurst 
calls  a  learned  and  accurate  critic,  be  correct  in  his 
explanation  of  this  word,  it  not  only  establishes  the 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  harmonizes  with  1 
Cor.  XV :  24,  28,  and  other  texts,  but  exhibits  some- 
thing peculiarly  pleasing  to  the  mind.  What,  my 
dear  sir,  has  this  world  been,  since  sin  entered  it,  but 
the  theatre  of  wars  and  tumults?  So  much  so,  that 
the  heart  sickens  at  the  tale  of  woe,  \shich  history 
and  even  our  own  experience  afford.  Is  it  not  then  a 
heart  reviving  consideration,  that  the  period  is  to  ar- 
rive, when  tranquility  and  peace  shall  be  restored  to 
all  the  universe  of  God  ?  But  you  know,  sir,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  common  doctrine  of  the  endless  pun- 
ishment of  a  great  part  of  the  human  race,  tranquility 
and  peace  shall  never  be  restored  to  all  the  universe. 
No  ;  instead  of  any  thing  like  this  being  accomplished 
at  the  period  mentioned  in  this  text,  it  is  then  properly 
speaking,  that  eternal  tumult  and  misery  are  to  com- 
mence. One  thing  is  certain,  that  if  the  word  resti- 
tution in  this  passage  means  any  thmg  good,  this  good 
is  to  all,  for  it  is  '  the  restitution  of  all  {h'mgs  panton 
the  universe.'  " 

The    Inquirer   then    considers  at  ^,^^  ^,^^  ^^  ^^^ 
what   time  this    "restitution  cf  all    ^■^^"^'^'^°^- 
things  "  is  to  take  place.     It  is  to  be  at  the  final 
coming  of  Christ,  (see  Acts  i :  11)  ;  and  is  the 


90  MEMOIR    OF 

same  restitution  of  all  things,  described  by  Paul, 
as  taking  place  at  the  final  coming  of  Christ, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

*'  In  the  passage  before  us,  we  are  told,  '  the  heav- 
ens must  receive  him  (or  rather  retain  him)  until  ihe 
times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.'  The  time  then 
of  this  restitution  of  all  things,  is  that  mentioned  in 
Acts  1:11,  when  Jesus  shall  so  come  in  like  manner 
as  the  disciples  saw  him  go  into  heaven.'  Observe, 
sir,  the  precise  agreement  of  Luke  in  this  passage, 
with  Paul  in  the  passages  already  considered.  They 
agree  not  only  in  the  work  to  be  done,  but  also  the 
time  of  its  accomplishment.  Luke  calls  the  work  to 
be  done  the  restitution  of  all  things,  and  Paul  calls  it 
subduing  all  things,  and  both  agree  as  to  the  time, 
the  coming  of  Jesus."  * 

Eighth  Letter. 
Christ,  the  heir  ^c  HOW  come  to  tlic  eighth  and 
thm.'s.  |gg^  principal  letter  from  the  Inquir- 
er to  Prof.  Stuart.  It  was  published  in  three 
weeks  after  the  seventh  had  appeared,  and 
through  the  same  medium.  In  fact,  all  these 
letters  had  a  common  channel  to  the  public  mind. 
The  Inquirer  still  dwells,  in  this  letter,  on  the 
Scriptural  use  of  the  phrase  ta  panta. 

*'  Sir, — The  next  passage  I  quote  for  your  consid- 
eration is,  Heb.  i :  1,  4.  '  God  who  at  sundry  times, 
and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times  past  unto  the 

*See  '-Universalist  Magazine"  of  March  24lh,  1821, 
for  the  original  publication  of  ihe  seventh  letter. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  91 

fathers,  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days,  spo- 
ken unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir 
of  all  iU'in^s,  (panton)  by  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds;  who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and 
the  express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all 
things  ta  panta,  the  universe,  by  the  word  of  his  pow- 
er,' &c." 

In   the   remarks  which  follow,  ^^^,^^^.^„^„^3 

•  1         .1  il_     X     j.T_  more  confident. 

we    can    see    evidently,  that  the 
convictions  of  the   Inquirer  as  to  the  falsity  of 
the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  grew  more  and 
more  strong.     He  speaks  with  increasing  bold- 
ness. 

"  Notice  here,  that  Christ  is  said  to  uphold  all  things, 
or,  ta  panra,  the  universe.  Is  not  this  the  same  all 
things,  which  in  the  passage  he  is  said  to  be  heir  of? 
What  hs  upholds,  and  what  he  is  appointed  heir 
of,  are  the  same,  and  this  is,  ta  panta,  the  uni- 
verse. Christ  then  is  appointed  heir,  or  as  some 
translate  and  explain  the  passage,  '  possessor  of  the 
universe.'  He  is  not  indeed  yet  come  into  the  full 
possession  of  his  inheritance,  but  we  are  assured  that 
all  thitiijs  are  to  be  subdued  to  him.  I  need  not  stop 
to  notice,  how  exactly  this  passage  agrees  with  Phil, 
ii :  9,  10,  and  Kev.  v:  13,  and  your  comments  on 
them.  Passing  this,  permit  me  to  ask, — If  Christ  is 
the  heir  of  the  universe,  will  he  leave  any  part  of  his 
inheritance  unsubdued?  You  know  that  according  to 
the  popular  belief,  a  great  part  of  this  mherilance  is 
to  rsmiin  forever  in  rebellion  and  misery.  But  I  ask 
further,  if  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race  are  to 
live  in  eternal  rebellion  and  misery,  is  Christ  very 
highly  exalted,  or  honored,  by  being  appointed  heir  to 
such  an  inheiitauce  ?  But  permit  me  to  ask  once  more, 


92 


MEMOIR    OF 


if  a  great  part  of  the  universe  is  to  continue  forever 
in  rebellion  and  misery,  may  it  not  be  said  with  more 
truth,  that  the  devil  is  appointed  heir  of  the  universe? 
And  that  God  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hands?  I 
am  shocked,  myself,  sir,  at  such  questions  ;  but  I  put 
them  for  the  purpose  of  leading  you,  and  myself,  and 
all  my  readers,  to  a  candid  and  careful  re-examination 
of  this  very  important  subject.  It  is  possible  we  may 
be  mistaken.  Indeed,  if  we  are  not,  but  it  is  a  fact, 
that  all  who  have  not  given  evidence  in  this  world  of 
being  subdued  to  Christ,  are  to  perish  forever,  the 
greater  part  of  the  universe  of  God  in  ages  past  have 
certainly  perished." 


Christ    is    abl*    to 
subdue    aU  thinos. 


The  next  passage,  and  the  last 
which  the  Inquirer  quotes  at 
length,  in  his  Letters  to  Prof.  Stuart,  is  the  fol- 
lowing, by  which  he  shows  that  the  "  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself:  " 

"  Phil,  iii  :  21 — '  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body, 
that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body, 
according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to 
subdue  all  things  to  panfa,  the  vniverse,  unto  himself.' 

*' It  is  here,  as  in  the  preceding  texis,  ^  ta  panta, 
the  universe.''  Besides,  the  word  translated  svLdne,  is 
the  same  as  in  1  Cor.  xv  :  24  to  28,  Heb.  ii  :  8,  and 
other  texts  already  considered.  If  I  have  proved  that 
the  subjection  in  these  texts,  is  a  willing  subjection, 
the  proof  equally  applies  here.  In  this  text  Christ's 
ability  to  subdue  all  things  to  himself  is  expressly  as- 
serted, and  I  presume  you  will  not  dispute  his  wil- 
lingness. Indeed,  this  is  included  in  the  word  which 
expresses  his  ability.  It  deserves  our  notice,  sir,  that 
this  subjection  is  said  to  be  '  unto  himself.''  This  lan- 
guage corresponds  to  the  language  of  1  Cor.  I5ih, 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  93 

Col.  1st,   and  other  texts,  which  have  been  consid- 
ered." * 

Having  thus  noticed  all  the  passages  classification 
in  which  the  phrase  ta  panta  (the  uni-  °^  p^^^^^es. 
verse)  occurs,  which  the  Inquirer  judged  it  neces- 
sary to  quote  at  length,  he  proceeds  to  classify 
the  remainder,  or  a  portion  of  them.  He  finds, 
he  says, 

1st.  That  the  creation  of  all  things  [ta  panta) 
is  ascribed  to  God  the  Father. 

2d.  That  God  is  said  to  have  created  all  things 
[ta  panta)  by  Jesus  Christ. 

3d.  That  Jesus  is  appointed  heir  of  all  things 
[ta  panta)  Acts  x :  36.  All  things  are  delivered 
to  him  Matt,  xi :  27,  given  into  his  harrds,  John 
iii :  35,  and  xiii:  3.  And  that  God  hath  given 
him  power  over  all  things,  John  xvii :  2,  xVlatt. 
xxviii :  18,  Comp.  John  v  :  20,  and  xvi :  15,  and 
xvii :  7. 

It  cannot  have  escaped  the  read- 3^^^^^ ^^^^.^^^ 
er's  attention,  that  Prof.  Stuart  had  "— ^^-• 
thus  been  the  means  of  opening  up  to  the  In 
quirer's  attention,  some  of  the  strongest  proofs 
of  Universalism  which  the  New  Testament  con- 
tains, viz : 

1st.  That  the  universe,  the  entire  universe, 

*See  '•  Universalist  Magazine  "  of  April  14,  1S21. 


94  MEMOIR   OF 

shall  worship  Jesus,  with  spiritual  and  divine 
worship,  yea,  with  just  such  worship  as  heaven 
renders.     Phil,  ii :  10,  11,  and  Rev.  v:  8,  14. 

2d.  That  God  will  at  last,  by  the  agency  of 
his  Son,  reconcile  all  things  (the  universe)  unto 
himself;  viz.,  the  same  all  things  that  he  had 
created,  visible  and  invisible,  thrones,  dominions, 
principalities  and  powers.  It  pleased  the  Father 
to  endow  Jesus  with  the  fullness  and  the  power 
to  reconcile  (not  merely  to  subjugate)  all  things^ 
in  this  most  extended  sense,  to  God  and  his  Son. 
Col.  i:  15,  17. 

3d.  That  Christ  will  reign,  until  he  hath  put 
down  all  adverse  rule,  authority  and  power, — 
overcoming  every  foe,  even  death,  the  last :  that 
all  things,  with  no  exception  whatsoever,  except 
God  himself,  shall  be  subject  to  Christ,  in  the 
same  way  and  in  the  same  spirit,  in  which  Christ 
is  subject  to  the  Father ;  and  thus  God  shall  be 
ALL  IN  ALL.  All  shall  bow  to  him  ;  all  shall 
confess  the  Son  to  be  Lord  in  such  a  way  as  to 
reflect  on  God  the  highest  glory ;  every  intelli- 
gent creature,  without  any  limitation,  shall  join 
in  the  grand  eulogium  of  blessing,  and  honor, 
and  glory,  and  power  to  him  that  sitteth  on  the 
throne  and  to  the  Lamb  forever  and  ever  ;  1  Cor. 
XV :  22,23;  Comp.  Phil,  ii:  10,  11;  Rev.  v:  8, 
14;  Col.  i:  15,  17;  and  Heb.  ii :  8. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR  95 

4th.  That  all  things,  the  universe,  and  intelli- 
'gent  beings  in  the  most  extended  sense,  are  to  be 
gathered  together  in  Christ,  in  the  fullness  of 
times.  See  Eph  i :  9,  10.  This  is  the  same 
as  bringing  all  things  into  subjection  to  Jesus, 
and  reconciling  them  all  to  himself.  See  the 
passages  before  quoted. 

5th.  That  there  shall  be  a  "  restitution  of  all 
things,"  at  the  final  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
as  hath  been  spoken  by  all  God's  holy  prophets 
since  the  world  began.     Acts  iii :  21. 

6th.  That  Jesus  is  appointed  heir  of  all  things. 
Heb.  i:  1,  4.  That  all  things  are  delivered  to 
him,  Matt,  xi :  27  ;  and  that  "  he  is  able  even  to 
subdue  all  things  unto  himself."     Phil,  iii:  21. 

When  we  view  these  texts  as  they  uni^ub^ldiy 
are  laid  before  us,  collated  and  illus-^  Godfword! 
trated  by  the  Inquirer,  we  confess,  with  devout 
gratitude  to  Almighty  God,  that  we  see  a  power 
in  them  that  no  ingenuity  or  sophistry  can  par- 
alyze ;  and  not  the  least  lingering  doubt  remains 
in  our  mind,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  final  holi- 
ness and  happiness  of  all  men,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  terms,  is  the  doctrine  of  God  and 
his  word  ;  that  the  salvation  of  all  men  is  a  work 
for  which  God  appointed,  endowed  and  qualified 
his  holy  and  faithful  Son  ;  that  Jesus  shall  sue- 


96  MEMOIR    OF 

ceed  ;  that  his  victory  shall  be  complete ;  that  all 
his  enemies  shall  die,  even  death,  the  last  of  the 
vanquished  train;  and  that  God  himself  shall 
then  reign  immediately  in  every  heart, — one 
grand  subjection,  union,  reconciliation  having 
been  wrought  upon  the  entire  universe,  in  and 
over  which  universe  God  shall  be  ALL  IN  ALL. 
other  considerations      Well  thon  might  the  Inquirer 

laddressed  to  .         .        ,   , 

Professor  Siuart.  gay,  as  hc  drcw  his  prmcipal  let- 
ters to  a  close, — 

"  Here,  sir,  I  finish  my  remarks  on  the  texts  in 
■which  ta  panta  are  found.  In  concluding,  I  shall  state 
for  your  serious  consideration,  some  things  which  oc- 
curred to  me  in  the  course  of  my  investigations. 

"  1st.  Is  not  the  number  of  texts,  which  I  have 
brought  forward,  about  as  many  as  you  have  done,  to 
prove  the  divinity  ot  Christ ?  If  you  should  say,  you 
only  brought  forward  a  few  out  of  the  many  v\hich 
you  could  have  adduced  in  proof  of  this  doctrine  ;  it 
is  likely  the  Universalist  would  reply,  that  1  have  only 
afforded  a  small  specimen  of  the  texts,  which  they 
could  adduce  in  proof  of  theirs.  But  what  you  ob- 
serve to  Mr.  Chaniiing,  1  think  is  just,  that  it  is  not 
the  number,  but  the  nature  of  the  texts  which  can 
prove  any  doctrine.  A  law  a  thousand  times  repeated, 
does  not  make  it  more  certainly  a  law,  than  if  only 
mentioned  once.     But, 

"  2d.  Are  any  of  the  texts  which  you  have  quoted 
in  proof  of  Christ's  divinity,  more  plain  and  explicit 
than  those  1  have  quoted  in  proof  of  universal  salva- 
tion? Does  any  one  text  say  more  plainly  and  ex- 
plicitly that  Christ  is  God,  than  the  texts  I  have  quo- 
ted say,  that  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  and 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR. 


97 


that  God  hath  by  hhn  reconciled  all  things  unto  him- 
self? How  then  do  your  texts  prove  Christ's  divinity, 
and  those  I  have  quoted  do  not  prove  universal  salva- 
tion ?  Pray  deliver  yourself  from  this  arbitrary  mode 
of  explaining  the  Bible,  if  you  can  do  it,  by  some  ra- 
tional explanation. 

"  3d.  Have  T,  in  these  letters,  or  do  Universalists, 
resort  to  the  original  languages  and  put  them  to  the 
torture  to  prove  their  doctrine,  that  you,  and  those 
whom  you  oppose,  do  in  the  controversy  about  the 
trinity?  This,  I  think,  will  not  be  asserted.  The 
force  of  all  I  have  advanced,  you  have  furnished  me 
in  your  criticisms  about  la  panta.  I  have  only  shown, 
that  in  judging  Mr.  Channing,  you  have  condemnel 
yourself.  So  far  as  I  have  looked  into  the  writiuL'S  of 
Universalists,  I  find  they  take  our  common  translation 
as  they  find  it,  and  attempt  to  prove  their  doctrine  by 
it.  Your  comments,  and  your  criticisms  on  the  orig- 
inal, as  I  think  I  have  shown,  both  tend  strongly  to 
confirm  them  in  their  opinions.  The  Orthodox  are 
not  more  under  obligations  of  gratitude  to  you  for 
your  letters  in  proving  Christ's  divinity,  than  are  the 
Universalists,  in  establishing  universal  salvation. 

"4th.  In  any  one  of  the  texts  on  which  1  have 
commented,  what  false  rule  of  interpretation  have  I 
adopted,  to  wrest  it  from  its  plain  obvious  meaning'? 
If  my  rules  of  interpretation  are  false,  yours  cannot 
be  true,  for  they  are  the  same.  I  will  feel  greatly 
obliged  to  you,  or  any  other  man,  who  will  show,  in  a 
single  instance,  that  I  have  deviated  from  your  rules 
of  interpretation,  nr  modes  of  reasoning. 

"  5th.  Could  you  have  availed  yourself  of  as  many 
explanations  and  concessions  from  Mr.  Channing,  as 
I  have  done  from  you  and  Dr.  Campbell,  what  would 
you  have  said?  Had  he,  in  a  controversy  with  the 
Universalist,  intimated  as  plainly  that  Christ  is  the 
supreme  God,  as  you  have  done  that  the  universe  shall 
perform  spiritual  and  divine  worship  to  Christ,  would 
7 


9S  MEMOIR    OF 

you  not  have  quoted  him  with  triumph'?  You  have 
quoted  authors  in  your  letters  in  proot  of  your  views. 
1  therefore  put  this  question  solemnly  to  your  con- 
science,— Are  any  of  your  quotations  more  plainly 
and  forcibly  to  your  purpose  in  pioof  of  Christ's  divin- 
ity, than  those  1  have  made  from  you  and  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, are  in  favor  of  universal  salvation? 

"  t)th.  It  seems  to  me,  that  in  proving  three  persons 
in  the  God-head,  you  are  obliged  to  adopt  a  course 
which  the  Universalists  seldom  if  ever  do  in  proving 
universal  salvation.  1  shall  explain  myself.  Is  it  not 
a  fact,  sir,  that  the  doctrine  oi  three  persons  in  the 
God-head,  is  attempted  to  be  proved  by  passages,  and 
these  tew  in  number,  by  way  of  inference  1  These 
inferences  are  sometimes  not  of  the  most  obvious  kind. 
Do  not  the  Universalists  quote  plain  declarations  of 
Scripture  in  proof  of  their  doctrine?  Besides,  when 
you  are  pushed  into  a  corner  by  argument,  in  pioving 
your  doctrine,  is  it  not  common  to  take  shelter  in  this — 
*It  is  a  mystery.^  Have  you  ever  found  a  Universal- 
ist  flee  fur  refuge  to  any  thing  like  this?  It  is  very 
common  with  you,  in  regard  to  the  trinity  to  say, 
'  The  fact  is  revealed,  the  mode  we  do  not  undertake  to 
exp/ain.^  Universalists  not  only  refer  you  to  passages 
declaring  the  fact,  that  all  men  shall  be  saved,  but  to 
texts  showing  how  this  is  to  be  done."  * 

♦These  arguments  are  abridged  from  the  letters  as 
originally  printed.  The  Inquirer  puts  home  the  following 
questions  to  the  Professor  :  "  Had  you  been  brought  up 
a  Universalist  as  you  have  been  a  Trinitarian,  and  were 
universal  salvation  an  article  in  the  Andover  creed,  yea, 
and  had  your  place  as  Professor,  and  your  temporal  in- 
terest led  you  to  defend  it  as  you  have  done  that  of  the 
trinity,  which  of  these  two  doctrines  could  you  most 
easily  have  defended  ?  Could  you  not  adduce  as  many, 
and  as  powerful  arguments,  drawn  from  Scripture,  reason 
and  common  sense,  to  support  the  one,  as  you  have  done 
in  support  of  the  other  ?  1  think  you  would  at  least  hes- 
tate  to  answer  this  question  in  the  negative." 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  99 

In  the  following  paragraph,  the  Inquirer  touch- 
es subjects  of  vast  importance;  and  one  can 
scarcely  refrain  from  exclaiming,  "  he  is  not  far 
from  thg  Kingdom  of  God;  '*  although  he  still 
remained  in  some  doubt : 

"  7th.  Whether  does  the  doctrine  of  universal  sal- 
vation, or  its  opposite,  give  the  most  honorable  and 
amiable  view  of  the  character  of  God,  and  which  is 
most  calculated  to  produce  peace  and  good  will  among 
men^  As  to  the  first  of  these,  little  need  be  said,  for 
surely  if  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  can  be 
fairly  and  fully  established  fron  the  Bible,  it,  to  the 
reason  of  men,  has  the  preference.  It  is  not  very 
easy  for  us  to  see,  God's  character  honorable  and 
amiable,  in  bringing  a  vast  number  of  beings  into  ex- 
istence, whom  he  foresaw  would  be  (not  to  say  as 
some  do  predetermined  that  they  should  be)  forever 
miserable.  I  never  tound  one  who  thus  talked  about 
God's  dooming  some  to  endless  misery,  that  ever  be- 
lieved themselves  of  this  number.  To  say  the  least, 
those  who  thus  speak  of  such  a  tremendously  awful 
subject,  have  given  too  just  cause  for  Universalists 
to  say, — that  th3  God  of  such  persons,  if  they  say  the 
truth  about  him,  is  very  like  a  tyrant.  As  to  the  sec- 
ond, certainly  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  if 
it  is  proved  to  be  true,  has  the  advantage  of  the  other 
in  promoting  peace  and  good  will  among  men.  The 
doctrine  is  what  every  unbiassed,  benevolent  mind 
wishes  true,  if  consistent  with  the  will  of  God.  It  is 
what  every  good  man  prays  for,  that  all  may  be  saved, 
and  what  his  exertions  go  to  promote.  Admitting 
the  doctrine  true  for  a  moment,  though  men  might 
look  on  each  other  as  wrong  in  many  respects,  yet 
not  as  finally  to  be  excluded  from  happiness.  Con- 
templating each  other  as  children  of  the  same  Father, 
7# 


100  MEMOIR    OF 

and  finally  to  enjoy  the  same  blessedness  in  heaven, 
it  is  surely  belter  calculated  to  beget  peace  and  benev- 
olence among  them,  than  the  opposite  doctrine  which 
leads  to  endless  strife  and  contention  here,  and  one 
party  consigning  the  other  over  to  endless  misery  in 
the  world  to  come.  If  the  doctrine  can  be  proved 
beyond  dispute  true,  1  think  you  will  allow,  that  all 
the  religious  sects  may  bear  with  each  other,  yea  live 
in  union  together. 

"  8ih.  It  is  not  true,  as  some  have  affirmed,  that 
this  doctrine  leads  to  licentiousness.  Say  some,  if  I 
believed  this  doctrine  true,  I  would  take  my  fill  of 
sin.  This,  sir,  I  iiave  always  considered  very  unfair 
treatment  of  the  Universalists.  It  will  be  used  by  no 
man,  who  does  not  wish  to  excite  popular  prejudice 
against  them.  The  same  argument  was  brought 
agaiiist  the  apostles,  and  indeed  is  to  this  day  brought 
against  every  man,  who  preaches  the  grace  of  God  as 
they  did.  If  the  grace  of  God  teaclies  one  man  to 
deny  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  it  also  teaches  all 
who  know  it.  If  it  leaches  one  to  say,  it  teaches  all 
to  say, — '  Shall  we  sin  because  giace  aboundeth^ 
God  forbid.  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
any  longer  therein.'  No  Universalist  that  I  have 
heard  of,  ever  held  the  doctrine  that  men  were  saved 
in  their  sins,  but  hold  that  all  men  are  or  will  finally  be 
saved  from  their  sins. 

"  yih.  But  you  may  say,  are  there  not  many  pas- 
sages of  scripture  which  seem  irreconcilable  wiih  the 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation?  I  admit  this,  but 
submit  for  your  sericus  consideration  the  following 
remarks.  Are  there  more  texts  to  be  found  which 
appear  irreconcilable  with  universal  salvation,  than 
there  are  found   which  seem  irreconcilable  with  the 

doctrine  of  the  trinity? 

#*  *'*  #  »#* 

"  I  have  called,  and  do  again  call  upon  you  to  show, 
how  they  can  be  reconciled.     When  you  have  done 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  101 

this,  it  is  no  more  than  reasonable  that  you  demand 
of  the  Universalists  to  reconcile  their  doctrine  with 
those  tests  which  are  at  variance  with  it.  If  their 
views  are  at  variance  with  the  Scriptures,  I  think  I 
have  shown  that  you  are  at  variance  with  yourself. 
Could  I  have  quoted  as  much  from  a  Universalist,  as 
I  have  done  from  you  in  favor  of  eternal  misery,  would 
you  not  have  said  that  he  contradicted  his  own  re- 
ceived doctrine?  But  I  have  further  to  remark,  that 
though  we  may  in  our  writings  contradict  ourselves, 
one  thing  is  certain,  that  God  does  not  contradict  him- 
self in  the  Bible.  The  contradictions  men  perceive 
there,  arise  from  their  ignorance,  and  vanish  as  they 
become  better  acquainted  with  it.  T  do  study  this  book, 
and  wish  to  avail  myself  of  every  means  to  ascertain 
its  true  meaning,  for,  to  ascertain  this,  1  most  cordial- 
ly agree  with  you  is  true  Orthodoxy.  That  we  may 
both  study  it  as  we  ou^^ht,  be  taught  by  the  spirit  of 
all  truth  to  understand  it,  and  confess  and  practice 
what  it  reveals,  is  the  sincere  desire  of  yours,  re- 
spectfully,* 

Inquirer  after  Truth. 

*Universali3t  Magazine — vol.  ii :  p.  166. 


CHAP.   V. 

The  Inquirer  becomes  a  Universalist  and 
avows  himself. 

,     The  Inquirer  still  waited  with  ear- 

Inquirer  mules  i 

one  roore  effort.  ^^^^^  but  scmewhat  Weakened  ex- 
pectations, for  Prof.  Stuart  to  appear  to  deliver 
him  from  the  danger  of  embracing  error,  if  in- 
deed the  doctrine  to  which  his  mind  had  been 
turned  were  an  error.  No  reply  came.  All  his 
inquiries  were  leading  him  further  onward  to- 
wards Universalism.  He  prayed  earnestly,  if 
that  doctrine  were  not  true,  that  he  might  not 
be  left  to  embrace  it ;  but  if  it  were  true,  he  was 
determined  to  know  it.  He  sought  to  gain  the 
true  sense  of  the  word  of  God.  He  did  not  ut- 
terly despair  that  the  Professor  would  help  him. 
He  was  tempted  to  write  him  once  more.  His 
feelings  were  these  :  he  wished  the  Professor  to 
know  to  what  result  his  "  Letters  to  Channing," 
aided  by  the  Inquirer's  own  investigations,  were 
likely  to  lead  him.  He  still  hoped  the  Professor 
might  make  an  effort  to   save  him  from  Univer- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  103 

salism.  He  resolved  to  write  once  more,  for  it 
could  harm  no  one,  if  it  did  no  good.  This  let- 
ter he  published  in  the  Universalist  Magazine, 
for  June  16th,  1821. 

The  Ninth  Letter. 

"  Sir, — Permit  me  only  once  more  to  address  you. 
If  yoa  thought  my  communications  unworthy  of  an 
answer,  you  might  have  said  so  in  a  few  words,  and 
perhaps  I  might  have  been  satisfied.  At  the  time  I 
wrote  them,  I  considered  tliere  were  things  stated 
which  required  some  explanation  from  you,  and  have 
not  yet  seen  any  reason  to  change  my  opinion." 

The  following  extract  will  show,    Eeintimstes 

•11  -I  11'^®  mav  publish 

that  the  Inquirer  had  conducted  his       a  boot. 
inquiries  on  an  extensive  scale.     He  hoped,  and 
yet  he  trembled.     He  feared,  if  he  meant  to  re- 
main an  honest  man,  he  must  become  a  Univer- 
salist.    Hear  him. 

*'  Since  1  first  wrote  you,  the  little  time  I  can  spare 
has  been  employed  in  examining  this  subject.  I  have 
directed  my  attention  to  the  Scriptures,  and  all  my 
researches  are  conducted  with  this  view,  to  ascertain 
what  is  truth.  The  plan  I  have  laid  down,  is  on  an 
extensive^  scale,  and  I  find  it  will  take  much  time  and 
labor  to  finish  it  It  has  cost  me  much  time  and  labor 
already,  and  I  increasingly  find  it  will  require  much 
more,  before  all  my  researches  are  completed.  I  do 
not  wish  to  anticipate  the  final  result,  but  so  far  as  my 
investigations  have  yet  been  conducted,  I  fear  that  if 
I  am  an  honest  man,  I  must  be  a  Universalist.  Now, 
my  dear  sir,  I  wish  you,  on  reading  this,  to  pause  and 
ask  yourself,  'Am  I  doing  right,  not  to  interpose  to 


104  MEMOIR    OF 

prpvent  this  result  1  Can  I  thus  suffer  a  man  to  be 
led  astray  by  anythino  I  have  written,  after  such  re- 
peated and  earnest  solicitations  for  necessary  explana- 
tions^ Should  this  man  perish,  and  others  through 
his  instrumentality,  all  originating  from  my  book,  can 
I  wash  my  hands  and  say,  1  am  clean,  your  blood  be 
upon  your  own  head?  '  The  God  of  heaven  be  wit- 
ness between  us,  that  the  statements  on  which  I  took 
the  liberty  to  remark,  were  the  means  of  shaking  my 
faiih,  and  yet  you  refuse  to  say  anything  to  re-estab- 
lish it.  I  solemnly  declare  that  1  have  been  sincere 
in  all  I  have  wriiten,  and  unfeignedly  have  desired, 
that  you  would  show  me,  if  possible,  how  you  recon- 
cile your  statements  with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  mis- 
ery. I  have  urged  you  uiitil  1  am  ashamed,  yet  you 
assign  no  reason  fur  your  silence.  What  am  I,  sir, 
in  such  a  case  to  do?  Is  there  any  other  alternative 
left  me,  but  either  to  shut  my  eyes,  quiet  my  convic- 
tions, and  sit  down  conienled,  an  implicit  believer  in 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery  ;  or,  to  gird  myself  to 
the  task,  candidly  and  patiently  to  examine  this  sub- 
ject fully  fur  myself?  The  la-st  of  these  I  prefer,  and 
if  life  and  health  be  granted  me,  1  shall  give  it  a  very 
full  investigation.  Should  my  inquiries  end,  as  I  fear 
they  must,  you  may,  perhaps,  have  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  that  I  have  neitlier  liasiily  nor  carelessly  made 
up  my  mind  on  ihis  very  important  subject.  The  ob- 
servations I  have  already  by  me,  collected  in  my  ex- 
amination of  tlie  Scriptures,  are  by  far  too  voluminous 
for  Magazine  communications.  I  shall  not  trouble  the 
world  with  another  book,  if  1  have  not  something  to 
offer  on  this  subject,  strong  and  conclusive.  I  feel  a 
solemn  responsil)iiity  for  what  I  may  write,  knowing 
that  it  will  outlive  me,  and  may  be  doing  much  mis- 
chief in  the  'Aorid,  when  it  is  out  of  my  power  to 
prevent  it.  If  you  have  got  anything  to  offer,  I  en- 
treat you  now  to  produce  ii.  I  am  open  to  conviction. 
What  is  truth  is  my  object,  and   to  argument  and  evi- 


Prof.  Stnart 
answers. 


EEV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  105 

dence  drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  I  shall  pay  atten- 
tion, from  whatever  quarter  they  may  come.  To  any 
other  mode  of  settling-  this  question,  ]  shall  he  like 
the  deaf  adder.  When  once  my  investio-aiions  are 
finished,  and  I  am  fully  satisfied  that  the  Bible  teaches 
no  such  doctrine  as  endless  misery,  I  shall  neither  be 
afraid  nor  ashamed  to  avow  it,  and,  if  necessary,  to 
defend  it.  My  views  may  then  possibly  be  submitled 
to  you  and  the  world  at  large  for  examination." 

From  this  heart-stirring  appeal,  the 
Professor  could  not  turn  away.  Policy 
even  required  him  to  say  something,  and  he 
therefore  sent  the  following  epistle  to  the  editor 
of  the  "  Universalist  Magazine,"  under  date  of 
Andover,  June  19th,  1621  : 

PiioF.  Stuart's  Letter. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Magazine : 

"  Sir, — I  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  several  num- 
bers of  vour  paper,  containing  letteis  addressed  to  me, 
by  some  anonymous  author.  In  a  recent  number, 
which  1  have  received,  the  author  seems  to  lake  it 
hardly,  that  I  have  not  noticed  any  of  his  former  com- 
municcitions.  I  have  surely  had  no  intention  to  treat 
him  ill  ;  and  I  believe  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  he 
has  no  just  reason  to  complain  of  me.  Anonymous 
animadversions  in  newspapers  may  be  rejilied  to  by 
those  who  have  no  other  occupation  which  prevents 
their  engaging  in  composing  pieces  of  such  a  nature. 
But  every  man,  who  is  deeply  engaged  in  professional 
business,  may  surely  be  excused  from  this  knid  of 
warfare. 

Besides,  if  your  correspondent  be  really  a  serious 
inquirer  after  truth,  as  he  professes  to  be,  he  could 
certainly  choose  some   belter  method  of  research  than 


106  MEMOIR    OP 

by  writing  newspaper  criticisms.  Can  he  candidly 
beliere  that  I  am  ooliged  to  spend  my  time  in  u-riting 
discussions,  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  single  individual, 
which  would  occupy  the  time  that  must  be  spent  in 
performing  duties  that  relate  to  many  ?  or  does  he  think 
that  I  love  to  court  disputes?  In  his  private  letter  to 
me,  why  did  he  not,  like  an  honest  inquirer  after 
truth,  give  his  name,  that  I  might  reply  to  his  letter? 
Or  why,  if  he  wishes  to  know  my  sentiments  relative 
to  his  exegesis  of  certain  passages  of  the  Scripture, 
did  he  not  call  on  me,  or  seek  an  opportunity  of  per- 
sonal and  friendly  conference?  This  he  could  have  at 
almost  any  time. 

In  short,  to  speak  plainly,  I  have  thought  from  what 
I  have  read^  that  your  correspondent  has  already  fixed 
his  system  of  belief,  and  only  wished  to  solicit  to  a 
dispute.  For  this  1  have  no  desire  ;  though  of  it  I 
have  no  fear.  But  I  must  know  ihe  name  and  object 
of  my  antagonist,  before  I  enter  the  lists  ;  and  con- 
tend on  some  other  ground  than  that  of  a  newspaper. 

If  your  correspondent  is  not  satisfied  with  these 
reasons,  he  can  easily  obtain  satisfaction  by  a  friendly 
conference.  I  am  indeed  quite  unable  to  reason  as  he 
does  about  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures ;  but  I  can- 
not spare  time  to  give  the  reasons  for  such  dissent  in 
writing,  at  present. 

Your  obedient  servant,* 

M.  Stuart. 

ch^rarterof      ^^  ^^  evldetit  that  Prof.  Stuart,  like 
the  Kepiy.  g^^^y  ^^jy  g|gg^  ^^,^g  totally  ignoTant 

who  the  Inquirer  was.  He  objected  to  his  ani- 
madversions, because  they  were  anonymous,  and 
because  they  were  published  in  newspapers.  But 

*See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  iii.  p.  1. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOITR.  107 

such  objections  as  these  must  be  considered  friv- 
olous, when  men's  consciences,  and  their  hopes 
for  time  and  for  eternity  are  at  stake.  Would 
the  Professor  stand  by  in  silence,  and  see  men 
led  away  to  believe  doctrines  he  considered  dan- 
gerous— doctrines  that  might  ruin  them  forever — 
when  the  writing  of  a  newspaper  criticism  to  an 
anonymous  suppliant  [for  such  the  Inquirer  truly 
was]  would  save  them?  He  would,  we  think, 
have  done  no  such  thing  ;  and  we  are  compelled, 
therefore,  reluctantly  we  acknowledge,  to  regard 
his  objection  as  a  subterfuge.  The  Professor 
was  very  anxious  to  know  who  this  Inquirer  was. 
He  was  fearful  he  was  some  real  Universalist  in 
disguise,  who  was  seeking  to  get  him  into  a  dis- 
pute. He  wished  a  personal  conference  with 
him,  that  if  possible  (as  we  judge)  the  matter 
might  be  hushed  up.  But  the  Inquirer  was  too 
honest  to  be  turned  from  his  purpose.  He  had 
assumed  no  disguise  ;  he  stood  before  the  world, 
professing  to  be  precisely  what  he  was,  an  open, 
honest,  fearless  Inquirer  after  Truth. 

The  Inquirer  responded  to  the  Pro-    Attempt  to 

ascertain  wbo 

fessor's  epistle.  In  the  meantime  a  inquirer  was. 
new  editor  had  taken  charge  of  the  "  Universal- 
ist Magazine,"  who,  on  the  reception  of  the  In- 
quirer's rejoinder,  made  an  effort  to  learn  who 


108  MEMOIR    OF 

he  was.  The  curiosity  among  Universalists  on 
this  point  ran  very  high.  A  letter  was  deposited 
in  the  Boston  Post  Office,  directed  to  an  "  In- 
quirer after  Truth ;  "  and  there  was  an  under- 
standing with  the  Clerk  of  delivery,  that  when 
this  letter  was  called  for,  he  should  learn,  if  pos- 
sible, who  took  it ;  and  if  a  messenger  called  for 
it,  it  was  to  be  inquired  by  whom  he  was  sent. 
To  facilitate  this  plan,  the  following  paragraph 
appeared  in  the  Universalist  Magazine  : 

'♦An  Inquirer  after  Truth,  in  answer  to  the  Rev. 
M.  Stuart  (in  the  first  number  of  vol.  3cl)  is  received. 
The  apparent  sincerity  and  candor  exhibited  by  the 
writer,  would  entitle  his  essay  to  hipher  consideration, 
and  render  it  equally  interesting  to  the  generality  of 
our  readers,  had  he,  in  expressing  his  sentiments  on 
the  subject,  paid  stricter  attention  to  conciseness  and 
perspicuity.  His  answer,  however,  is  under  consid- 
eration ;  in  the  interim,  he  will  find  a  letter  in  the  post 
office."* 

The  Inquirer,  however,  was  too  wary  for  the 
editor  of  the  Magazine  ;  he  never  made  any  ap' 
plication  for  the  "  letter  in  the  post  office."  It 
still  remained  a  profound  mystery  who  he  was. 
Inquirer  notices      It  was  to  bo  oxpocted  that  the  In- 

the  Professor's  .  •       l  i 

Letter.       quiror  would  pay  suitable  attention 
to  the  Professor's  letter.     He  read  it  very  care- 


*See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  iii.,  p.  16. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  109 

fully;  he  took  time  to  reflect  upon  it,  when  he 
published  an  epistle  to  the  Professor,  in  the 
"Universalist  Magazine,"  which  closed  utterly 
his  communications  to  him.  We  make  the  fol- 
lowing extracts : 

"  Sir, — I  am  glad  you  notice  my  communications, 
but  am  sorry  you  do  not  comply  with  my  reasonable 
request.  You  do  not  deny  but  that  it  was  reasonable. 
It  even  seems  to  be  admitted,  that  your  statements  on 
which  I  remarked,  are  at  variance  with  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  misery.  I  am  not  charged  with  having 
misunderstood  you,  treated  you  uncandidly,  or  used 
unkind  and  disrespectful  language.  You  do  not  say 
your  statements  are  false,  nor  do  you  profess  yourself 
able  and  willing  to  reconcile  them  with  this  doctrine, 
but  say  things  of  me,  which,  upon  reflection,  I  think 
you  must  legret.  For  example,  that  I  am  not  a  serious 
and  honest  inquirer  after  truth  ;  my  system  of  belief 
is  already  fixed  ;  and  that  I  am  your  antan-oriist,  and 
only  wish  to  solicit  a  dispute  with  you.  Of  the  truth 
of  these  charges,  I  leave  others  to  judge,  from  what  I 
have  written.  I  can  only  say,  my  conscience  bears 
me  testimony,  that  in  every  one  of  them  you  are  mis- 
taken. Only  show  how  you  reconcile  your  state- 
ments with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery,  and,  how- 
ever unsatisfactory  your  explanation  may  be  to  my 
mind,  I  shall  be  silent,  unless  you  desire  my  further 
Cv^rrespondence.  This  is  the  sum  of  all  1  ever  request- 
ed.    This,  my  dear  sir,  is  all  I  ask. 

"  I  was  fully  aware  that  your  time  did  not  permit  you 
to  write  at  large  on  this  subject.  Such  a  demand  1 
have  never  made.  All  I  have  requested,  is,  that  in 
the  briefest  possible  way,  you  give  me  a  clue,  or  a 
few  hints,  whereby  I  can  reconcile  the  statements  you 


J  10  MEMOIR    OF 

have  made,  with  your  belief  in  eternal  punishment. 
You  must  have  the  7iame  and  object  o(  your  antagonist, 
and  even  then  you  will  not  enter  the  list  with  him  on 
the  ground  of  a  newspaper.  I  never  v»as,  my  dear 
eir,  your  antagonist.  I  never  wished  to  enter  the  list 
with  you,  or  solicit  a  dispute.  How  you  can  be  yet 
ignorant  of  my  object,  is  to  me  surprising.  It  is,  then, 
for  your  information,  this, — Rationally  and  scriptural- 
It/  to  reco?icile  your  statements,  on  which  I  used  the  free- 
dom  to  comment,  with  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery. 
******** 

*'  My  reasons  for  not  giving  my  name  at  first,  and 
why  1  yet  decline  doing  so,  I  shall  now  briefly  state. 
First,  then,  because  the  world  is  ruled  by  names.  As 
your  name  gives  weight  and  force  to  all  you  say  and 
write,  1  am  not  willing  that  mine  should  be  the  means 
of  rendering  W5e/e.s5  anything  which  I  have  to  advance. 
Let  men  judge  what  1  say,  uninfluenced  by  my  name. 
Farther,  I  had  no  occasion  to  give  my  name,  for  1  was' 
not  writing  an  answer  to  your  book,  but  only  request- 
ing some  explanation  from  you  about  a  very  small  part 
of  it.  Besides,  you  could  as  easily  show,  without  my 
name  as  with  it,  how  you  reconciled  your  statements 
with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery.  Hovi^myname 
could  be  of  any  service  to  you  about  this,  I  am  unable 
to  perceive.  1  may  add,  that  common /?n^^e/ice  dic- 
tates I  should  not  give  my  name  until  my  mind  is 
brought  to  some  decision  on  this  subject.  You  have 
unsettled  my  mind.  I  have  urged  you  to  say  some- 
thing to  establish  it  ;  and,  until  this  is  done,  (y  1  am 
convinced  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery  cannot 
be  supported  from  the  Bible,  why  should  1  give  peo- 
ple occasion  to  say  I  had  become  a  Universalist,  when 
I  am  only  using  means  to  avoid  it. 

"  But  a  still  more  powerful  reason  than  all  these  has 
operated  with  me,  not  to  seek  satisfaction  by  personal 
conference,  or  private  letter.     It  is  the  following  :     J 


KEV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  Ill 

am  not  the  solitary  individual,  my  dear  sir,  who  has 
been,  or  is  likely  to  be  affected  by  jour  statements. 
Every  reader  of  your  book  is  liable  to  this.  That 
reader  is  no  honor  to  you,  nor  will  he  profit  himself 
much,  who  reads  your  book  so  carelessly  as  not  to 
perceive  that  your  statements  strongly  go  to  prove  the 
idea  of  universal  salvation.  So  long  as  the  sun  and 
moon  endure,  you  may  be  quoted  to  prove  this  doc- 
trine. A  writer  in  the  Universalist  Magazine  avers 
that  he  never  saw,  in  so  few  words,  anything  so  con- 
clusive in  support  of  their  sentiments.  Though  this 
writer  is  unknown  to  me,  and  though  1  have  never 
conver:?ed  with  a  single  individual  on  the  subject,  I 
venture  to  say  that  this  declaration  is  that  of  the  whole 
body  of  Universalists.  1  go  further,  and  say  that  no 
candid,  reflecting  man,  who  reads  your  book  with  at- 
tention, but  must  be  of  the  same  opinion.  You  see, 
then,  that  with  such  impressions,  I  did  not  consider 
myself  writing  as  you  intimate,  '  newspaper  criti- 
cisms,' to  oblige  you  to  spend  your  time  '  in  writing 
discussions  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  single  individual.' 
No,  my  dear  friend,  I  wished  you  to  write  for  the 
benefit  of  a// the  Universalists,  of  all  who  read  your 
book  ;  yea,  of  thousands  yet  unborn.  You  presume 
too  much  if  you  think  the  Universalists  so  dull  as  to 
overlook  the  pertinent  statements  you  hare  made  in 
their  favor.  Had  1  not  brought  them  to  view,  long 
before  now,  they  would  likely  have  quoted  you  tri- 
umphantly. Why,  then,  blame  me  for  not  pjivately 
conferring  with  you  for  my  own  satisfaction  ;  when  so 
many  r^uire  also  to  be  satisfied,  how  you  reconciled 
your  statements  with  your  professed  belief.  I  think 
you  rather  ought  to  be  thankful  that  thus  you  had  a 
fair  opportunity  of  retracting  your  statements,  or  show- 
ing to  all  men  how  you  did  reconcile  them. 

##  *  *  *  *#* 

"  May  1  use  the  freedom  to  suggest  that  your  time 
would  not  b«^  unprofitably  spent,  in  showing  to  the 


112  me:\ioir   of 

youns:  men  under  your  care,  how  you  reconcile  your 
statements  with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery  ;  and 
pointing  oat  to  them  the  fallacious  nature  and  perni- 
cious tendency  of  my  reasoninrr  about  the  meaning  of 
Scripture?  For  my  benefit,  and  that  of  the  Univer- 
salists,  yea,  of  all  others,  you  might  easily  give  an 
abstiact  of  your  labors,  I  have  to  complain  of  the 
want  of  time  as  well  as  you.  Be  assured,  sir,  it  was 
not  for  the  want  of  any  other  '  occupation,'  I  have  en- 
gaged in  writing.  That  man  must  be  very  busy  in- 
deed, if,  in  a  similar  state  of  mind  with  me,  he  cannot 
redeem  a  little  time  to  have  his  mind  informed,  and 
established  on  such  a  subject  as  the  one  before  us.  I 
really  thiiik  you  might  have  found  a  few  moments  to 
reconcile  your  statements,  and  prevent  their  evil  ten- 
dency on  me,  and  others.  About  this  subject,  it  is 
impossible  for  me  to  be  at  rest,  until  I  either  obtain 
satisfaction  or  can  persuade  myself  that  the  future 
eternal  conditions  of  men  are  mere  trifles. 

"  It  appears  to  me  that  you  have  some  secret  con- 
viction that  I  am  in  league  with  the  Universalists,  and 
that  all  this  writing  is  intended  to  involve  you  in  a 
controversy  with  them.  If  it  were  so,  I  can  see  no 
possible  reason  you  can  have  for  declining  an  expla- 
nation, how  you  reconcile  your  statements  with  eternal 
punishment.  But  I  assure  you  no  such  thing  is  the 
case.  What  1  have  said  is  in  the  sincerity  of  my 
heart,  and  with  no  man  on  ike  face  of  the  earth  have  I 
ever  exchanged  a  icord  on  this  subject, ^^ 

The  Inquirer's    last  words  to  the  Professor 

were , — 

"Should  you  feel  disposed  to  give  me  the  informa- 
tion I  have  requested,  I  shall  consider  myself  as  very 
much  obliged  to  you.  If  you  have  not  time  to  do 
this,  would  you  be  kind  enough  to  refer  me  to  some 
work  in  which  I  may  find  this  information.     If  you 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  113 

decline  both,  you  shall  not  very  soon  hear  again  from 
me,  as  I  wish  to  devote  all  my  leisure  moments  to  the 
investig-ation  of  this  deeply  interesting  subject.  If 
want  of  ti  ne  be  the  reason  why  you  do  not  reconcile 
your  statements  with  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  mis- 
ery, I  am  sure  it  cannot  be  for  want  of  talents.  Per- 
haps soma  may  suspect  that  it  arises  from  the  impos- 
aibility  of  the  thing.  To  me,  at  present  it  appears  to 
be  impossible.  It  is  one  thing  for  you  not  to  fear  a 
dispute  with  me,  and  quite  another  to  perform  an  im- 
possibility. If  It  can  be  very  easily  done,  it  only 
makes  me  the  more  urgent  that  it  should  be  done. 
I  am  yours,  &c.,* 

An  Inquirer  after  Truth." 

The  Inquirer  then  had  no  farther    The inqurer 

.  1  •     1  r>  turns  away  from 

prospect  01  getting  any  light  irom  ^^^^  -staart. 
Prof.  Stuart,  and  he  determined  to  apply  to  him 
no  more.  Nothing  remained  for  him  to  do  as  an 
honest  man,  but  to  go  very  thoroughly  into  tho 
examination  for  himself,  that  he  might  know 
whether  the  doctrine  of  endless  torments,  and 
other  kindred  dogmas,  were  taught  in  the  word 
of  God.  To  that  high  standard  he  went.  He 
sought  truth,  and  truth  alone.  His  prayer  was, 
"  lead  me,  0  Lord,  in  the  right  way."  He  gave 
all  his  leisure  hours  to  this  investigation.  He 
was  seen  continually  studying  the  Bible,  and  the 
best  writers  on  the  sense  and  the  proper  manner 
of  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.     He  re- 


*3ee  Universaliit  Magazine,  vol.  iii.,  p.  25. 

8 


114  MEMOIR  OF 

solved  to  leave  no  means  untried  to  make  him- 
self acquainted  with  the  views   of   the   sacred 
writers  on  the  great  subject  of  the  extent  of  sal- 
vation."^ 
Inquirer  dreaded      Somc  suoposed  that  he  was  some- 

to  become  a,  ,  r        ■  i  ^  XT     •  T 

universaiist.  what  ajraici  to  become  a  U  niversalist; 
that  he  was  rather  seeking  means  to  avoid  it,  if 
possible.  One  writer  addressed  him  through  the 
Magazine,  quoting  his  words,  ''My  only  reason 
for  not  giving  my  name  is,  it  would  be  foolish  to 
afford  people  occasion  of  saying  I  had  embraced 


♦The  Inquirer  said,  some  years  afterwards,  "When 
Mr.  Stuart  declined  all  explanation  how  he  reconciled  his 
gtatemenis  with  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishnrient,  I 
determined  to  make  a  pretty  thorough  examination  of  the 
subject  for  my  own  satisfaction.  The  substance  of  my 
investigations  has  been  published  in  my  first  and  second 
inquiries,  essays,  and  other  publications.  Whether  my 
books  have  done  any  good  or  evil  to  the  world,  the  world 
has  Prof  Stuart  lo  thank  for  them.  When  I  wrote  those 
letters,  1  had  as  little  thought  of  writing  a  book  in  favor 
of  universal  salvation  as  of  creating  a  new  world.  All 
my  prejudices,  and  habits  of  thinking,  as  well  as  my 
honor  and  interest,  were  strongly  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment.  To  Mr.  Stuart,  of  Andover,  I 
am  indebted  for  making  me  a  Universalist,  and  to  him 
the  world  are  indebted  for  my  books,  if  I  have  em- 
braced an  error,  and  have  published  it  to  the  world,  let 
all  who  think  so,  know,  that  he  is  the  man  who  led  me 
astray  ;  was  urged  to  give  some  explanation,  but  de- 
clined it  ;  and  that  nothing  has  been  said  by  him  or  any 
person,  to  show  me  my  error.  His  Exegetii  al  Essays  do 
not  touch  the  points  discussed  in  the  following  letters.'' 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR  ]\5 

the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  when  I  am 
only  using-  every  proper  means  to  avoid  it."  "  I 
should  think,  sir,  (said  the  writer)  if  the  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation  were  as  congenial  to  the 
benevolence  of  your  soul  as  you  have  represent- 
ed it  to  be,  you  would  not  use  every  proper 
means  to  avoid  believing  it."  ^  Inquirer  had  fre- 
quently intimated,  that  he  rather  dreaded  to  be- 
come a  Universalist;  it  was  not  his  wish,  but  he 
feared  he  should  be  obliged  to  do  so,  if  he  meant 
to  remain  an  honest  man.  It  was  this  which  led 
the  individual  from  whom  we  have  quoted  to 
address  him.  Universalists  generally  supposed 
the  Inquirer  somewhat  dreaded  to  embrace  their 
doctrines  ;  and  this  seemed  to  them  an  unfavor- 
able reflection  upon  God's  truth.  Why  should 
a  man  dread  to  be  brought  to  believe,  that  all 
God's  intelligent  creation  will  at  last  be  made 
holy  and  happy  ?  Is  it  not  what  he  would  pray 
for?  Would  it  not  increase  his  peace  of  mind  ? 
Would  it  not  make  him  a  happier  man  ? 

To     suggestions    like     these,   the    xnquirer's  e.plana. 

Inquirer  was  not  blind.  Li  the  "--^^-p--^ 
spirit  of  open-hearted  candor,  he  replied  as  fol- 
lows : 


♦See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  iii  ,  p.  40. 

8^ 


116  MEMOIR   OF 

"  It  must  be  evident  to  every  candid  man,  that  my 
raind  was  far  from  being  decided  ;  yea,  my  very  writ- 
ing was  Jor  the  purpose  of  obtaining  Jight  to  form  a 
correct  decision  on  this  subject.  1  had  formerly  be- 
lieved that  universal  salvation  was  a  very  pernicious 
error.  Until  I  therefore  had  seen  sufficient  evidence 
to  convince  me  that  I  was  mistaken,  it  would  ill  be- 
come a  candid  inquirer  after  truth  not  to  use  all  prop- 
er means  to  avoid  it.  This  I  applied  to  Mr.  Stuart 
to  assist  me  in  doing,  which  I  am  truly  sorry  he  de- 
clines doing.  On  the  other  hand,  my  letters  surely 
may  be  allowed  to  speak  for  themselves,  that  I  was 
not  using  means  merely  to  avoid  this  it  it  was  an  er- 
ror, but  was  also  using  means  to  ascertain  if  this 
might  not  be  truth,  and  that  1  had  been  formerly  mis- 
taken. Seeing  Mr.  Stuart  declines  satisfying  my 
raind,  I  have  girded  myself  to  the  task  of  making  an 
extensive  inquiry  for  my  own  satisfaction  on  this  sub- 
ject. When  I  shall  be  able  to  finish  the  course  of  in- 
vestigation I  have  prescribed  for  myself,  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  me  at  present  to  say;  perhaps  sometime  in 
the  course  of  the  coming  w  inter.  1'he  lime  1  have  to 
devote  to  this  is  but  little,  especially  in  summer.  I 
anticipate  the  long  evenings,  when,  if  my  health  be 
continued,  1  hope  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  my  present 
investigations.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  change  my 
opinion  on  such  a  subject  as  this,  as  easily  as  I  could 
shift  my  clothes. 

"  If  you  or  any  one  else  think  that  when  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  universal  salvation,  I  would  be  ashamed 
or  afraid  to  avow  it  publicly,  only  exercise  patience 
for  a  few  months  and  you  may  find  yourself  mistaken. 
I  can  assure  you  1  have  no  place  nor  pension  at  stake 
by  a  change  of  opinion.  No  man  can  be  placed  in  a 
situation  more  favorable,  free  from  all  worldly  tempta- 
tions to  either  side  of  this  subject,  so  as  to  give  it  an 
impartial  examination.  In  short,  as  I  have  nothing  to 
hope  for  by  a  change  of  opinion,   I  have  as  little  to 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  117 

fear,  except  it  be  to  defend  the  new  sentiments  which 
I  may  embrace.  This  1  wish  to  be  prepared  for, 
should  my  investigations  terminate,  as  I  think  they 
must,  in  the  belief  that  universal  salvation  is  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture,  when  it  is  justly  interpreted." 

It  will  have  been  observed,  that  the  ^ 

'  He  pursues 

Inquirer  said,  "1  have  girded  myself^^'^'"-"'""^- 
to  the  task  of  making  an  extensive-  inquiry,  for 
my  own  satisfaction,  on  this  subject."  He  pur- 
sued this  inquiry  very  faithfully.  His  friends 
knew  not  what  he  was  engaged  in,  and  perhaps 
not  even  his  own  family  were  aware  the  course 
his  mind  was  taking.  For  a  time  he  ceased  to 
attract  the  public  attention.  He  sunk,  as  it  were, 
out  of  sight.  Some  had  begun  to  forget  him, 
and  his  letters  to  Prof.  Stuart,  which  had  come 
to  be  regarded  somewhat,  merely  as  things  that 
luere.  But  the  Inquirer's  mind  was  never  more 
active  than  during  this  time.  He  had  quite  ful- 
ly investigated  the  evidences  furnished  by  the 
New  Testament  writers,  in  favor  of  the  ultimate 
holiness  and  happiness  of  all  men,  in  the  course 
of  his  letters  to  Prof.  Stuart;  but  there  was 
another  class  of  texts  to  be  examined,  viz.,  those 
which  had  been  comnnonly  used  to  support  the 
opposite  doctrine  of  endless  misery.  During  the 
time  we  have  mentioned,  when  the  public  knew 
not  what  the  Inquirer  was  doing,  he  was  engaged 


118  MEMOIR    OF 

in  the  examination  of  these  texts,  and  especially 
of  those  in  which  the  word  hell  occurs,  which 
had  been  regarded  as  the  strong  foundation  of 
the  awful  doctrine  we  have  mentioned.  He  pur- 
sued these  inquiries,  until  he  became  fully  satis- 
fied, not  only  that  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation 
of  all  men  was  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  but 
that  there  was  not  a  passage,  in  any  part  thereof, 
which,  when  properly  understood,  taught  a  con- 
trary doctrine.  The  Inquirer  took  time  for  a 
very  careful  examination ;  and  the  result  was, 
that  he  found  himself  convinced,  beyond  the 
shade  of  a  doubt,  that  Universalism  was  sus- 
tained by  the  word  of  God. 
^     ,  He  was  not  a  man  to  flinch  from 

Icquirer  avows 

Mmseif.  ^  candid  avowal  of  what  he  fully 
believed.  He  now  saw  that  Universalism  was 
a  plainly  revealed  doctrine  of  the  divine  word ; 
and  that  not  a  text  in  all  the  book  of  God,  when 
understood  in  its  original  intent  and  signification, 
furnished  the  slightest  objection  to  that  doctrine. 
He  felt  it  his  duty,  therefore,  to  avow  himself. 
On  the  morning  of  the  last  Sabbath  in  May, 
1S23,  he  opened  his  mind,  on  the  great  subject, 
to  the  little  flock  to  whom  he  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  minister  at  Washington  Hall,  testifying 
to  them,  before  God,  that  he  had  been  brought  to 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  119 

believe  in  the  final  reconciliation  of  all  things, 
as  a  fact  clearly  and  fully  revealed  in  the  divine 
word;  and  declaring,  that  in  his  judgment,  there 
was  not  a  text  which  could  be  properly  used  in 
opposition.  He  gave  them  some  of  the  leading 
evidences  of  what  he  believed.  What  the  con- 
sequences of  this  avowal  might  be  to  himself, 
he  did  not  stop  to  inquire.  He  clearly  saw  that 
Universalism  was  God's  truth;  he  k?ieio  it  was 
his  duty  to  avow  and  defend  God's  truth,  and 
impress  it  upon  the  minds  of  men  ;  and  whether 
they  would  hear,  or  forbear  to  hear — whether 
they  would  love  him  more  or  less  for  his 
change — he  must  declare  it. 

There  was  much  excitement  in  p,„,,,.,,„,^, 
Charlestown,  on  the  succeeding  day.  °'i^**^°^'^^- 
The  little  flock,  who  first  heard  the  intelligence, 
were  amazed.  They  knew  their  pastor's  con- 
scientiousness ;  they  knew  he  was  an  honest  be- 
liever of  what  he  had  avowed ;  they  knew  they 
could  not  turn  him  from  his  purpose,  even  if 
they  wished  to  do  so  ;  and  nothing  remained  for 
them  to  do  but  to  adhere  to  him  as  a  Universal- 
ist,  or  to  forsake  him  altogether.  The  change  in 
his  opinions  became  at  once  the  subject  of  con- 
versation, not  only  between  the  members  of  his 
little  flock,  but  between  those  of  the  other  re- 


120 


MEMOIR   dF 


ligious'  societies  in  the  town,  and  especially 
among  the  Universalists.  They  had  always 
respected  him  for  the  quiet  and  peaceable  life  he 
had  pursued,  in  all  godliness  and  honesty. 
"When  they  learned  that  he  had  become  a  Uni- 
versalist, — a  fellow  believer  with  themselves, — 
they  rendered  thanks  to  God  ;  but  when  they 
learned  also  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  Let- 
ters to  Prof.  Stuart,  which  had  excited  so  much 
speculation  in  regard  to  the  authorship,  their  joy 
became  still  greater.  They  looked  upon  the  con- 
version of  Mr.  Balfour  as  an  eminent  triumph 
of  divine  truth.  It  was  the  Tictory  of  truth  over 
long  cherished  and  honestly  believed  errors. 
The  Universalists  could  not  but  make  the  com- 
parison between  this  conversion  and  the  conver- 
sions that  had  taken  place  under  the  preaching 
of  the  partialist  divines.  Those  preachers  prose- 
lytised the  young,  the  thoughtless,  the  ignorant, 
merely  by  working  upon  their  passions,  without 
communicating  to  them  any  proper  knowledge  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  by  such  conversions,  they 
filled  up  their  churches  with  a  class  of  profes- 
sors, who  knew  very  little  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  who  felt  sometimes  but  little  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  But  Mr.  Balfour  had  been  made  a  Uni- 
versalist  by  a  diligent  and  prayerful  study  of  the 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  121 

Scriptures,  against  the  influence  of  long  cher- 
ished opinions,  and  with  the  help  of  a  thorough 
theological  education.  He  was  regarded  by  the 
public  as  a  profound  scholar,  who  had  had  the 
advantages  of  a  liberal  education,  and  who  un- 
derstood the  original  languages  in  which  the 
Bible  was  written.  That  such  a  rnan  should, 
in  such  a  manner,  be  brought  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  avowing  his  faith  cheerfully  and 
openly,  was  indeed  an  eminent  triumph  of  the 
gospel;  and  it  gave  great  satisfaction  to  the 
Universalists  of  the  country. 

The  following  announcement  appeared  in  the 
"  Universalist  Magazine"  of  May  31st,  1823: 

Another  Conversion  in  the  Ministry. 
"  The  Rev.  Mr.  Balfour,  who  has  been  for  several 
years  a  Baptist  minister  in  Charlestown,  Mass.,  has 
recently  become  a  L^niversalist.  On  the  last  Sabbath 
morning,  he  made  an  avowal  of  his  sentiments  to  his 
congregation.  The  friends  of  universal  grace  and 
salvation  cannot  but  be  thankful  for  this  valuable  ac- 
quisition to  the  number  of  those  who  proclaim  eter- 
nal life  sure  in  Christ  Jesus  for  all  mankind.  Mr. 
Balfour  is  the  learned  author  of  the  Letters  to 
Prof.  Stuart,  which  appeared  sometime  since  in  the 
'  Universalist  Magazine,'  signed  'An  Inquirer  After 
Truth.'  " 

The  little  congregation  at  Washington  Hall 
dispersed,  and  the  place  has  never  since  been 
used,  we  think,  for  the  purpose   of  public  wor- 


122  MEMOIR    OF 

ship.  Some  of  the  members  followed  their  late 
pastor  to  the  Universalist  meeting-house,  where 
he  delivered  lecture  after  lecture,  in  defence  of 
his  new  opinions.  He  found  himself  at  once  in 
a  new  field  of  duty  and  labor. 


CHAP.  VI. 

Mr.  Balfour's  First  Publication. 
After  Mr.  Balfour  had  avowed  him- ma  course  of 

^  Sermons  in 

self  as  a  Universalist,  and  as  the  au- cuaneatown. 
thor  of  the  letters  to  Prof.  Stuart,  the  Univer- 
salists  of  his  own  town  (prominent  among  whom 
was  Dr.  A.  R.  Thompson)  expressed  a  very 
strong  desire  that  he  would  deliver  a  course  of 
lectures  in  the  Universalist  church.  This  he 
did  not  decline  to  do.  They  believed  that  he 
possessed  the  learning  and  talents,  the  independ- 
ence of  mind  and  freedom  from  prejudice  so 
necessary  to  an  impartial  investigation  of  the 
great  subjects  to  which  he  had  given  his  atten- 
tion ;  and  many  of  his  religious  opponents  did 
him  the  justice  to  say  he  was  not  a  rash  man, 
but  one  who  proceeded  with  caution,  who  never 
received  anything  as  divine  truth  until  he  had 
sufficiently  and  prayerfully  considered  it,  and 
was  convinced  it  was  such.  The  errors  of  his 
early  days  he  did  not  receive  from  examination, 
but  from  his  education,  at  home,  and  at  the  kirk, 


124  MEMOm    OF 

and  by  the  influence  of  public  opinion  all  around 
him.  Much  of  this  he  had  to  unlearn  ;  he  gave 
up  those  doctrines  one  after  the  other,  as  he 
found  them  to  be  false.  He  became  a  Univer- 
salist  because  he  could  not  resist  the  powerful 
influence  of  that  doctrine.  All  this  the  Univer- 
salists  of  Charlestown  knew ;  and  they  wished 
to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  utter  his  opinions, 
before  the  public,  and  in  a  place  where  all  who 
wished  to  hear  could  gain  access.  Accordingly, 
he  gave  a  course  of  sermons  in  the  church  re- 
ferred to,  which  attracted  much  attention.  They 
embraced  a  Scriptural  view  of  the  meaning  of 
the  four  words  translated  AeZZ,  viz.,  Sheol^  Hades^ 
Tartarus  and  Gehenna.  Mr.  Balfour  had  fully 
satisfied  himself  in  writing  his  Letters  to  Prof. 
Stuart,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  all 
mankind  was  a  doctrine  of  the  divine  word, 
but  there  was  a  class  of  texts  which  seeemed  to 
oppose  that  doctrine.  These  it  was  his  duty  to 
examine,  and  it  was  the  result  of  that  examina- 
tion which  he  proposed  to  lay  before  the  citizens 
of  Charlestown. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  for  any  in  this 
day,  who  did  not  live  at  that  time,  and 
participate  in  the  soul-stirring  events,  to  realize 
the  satisfaction  afforded  to  those  who  listened  to 


Effects  of  the 
Sermons. 


RRV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  125 

Mr.  Balfour  on  the  occasions  referred  to.     The 

Universalists  of  this  country,  it  is  true,  had  come 
to  the  same  general  conclusions  arrived  at  by 
him,  even  before  he  was  known  to  them  ;  but  he 
treated  the  Scriptures  with  a  breadth  of  thought 
and  a  scope  of  investigation  rarely  known  among 
them  before,  He  entered  into  a  faithful  and 
critical  analysis  of  the  Scriptures,  classifying  all 
the  passages  in  which  the  word  hell  occurs ;  and 
avowed  it  his  full  conviction,  after  the  most  thor- 
ough examination  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  be- 
stow upon  the  subject,  that  hell^  in  the  original 
Scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  did  not  signify  a 
place  or  state  of  endless  misery,  nor  even  of  a 
limited  punishment  after  the  present  life.  Such 
was  the  effect  of  this  course  of  sermons,  that  Mr. 
Balfour  was  urged,  very  earnestly,  to  permit  the 
publication  of  his  inquiries  concerning  the  true 
import  of  the  word  hell,  as  used  by  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  writers.  These  are  the  facts 
which  gave  rise  to  his,  so  called, ^7-5^  inquiry. 
In  July,  1823,  came  out  the  pros-     import  of 

1   T    1  r-  ^^  words 

pectus  for  the  publishment  of  the^^^^^''^'^^^"- 
inquiry,  entitled  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Scriptural 
import  of  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus 
and  Gehenna,  all  translated  Hell  in  the  com- 
mon Endish  version."     Mr.  Balfour  said — 


126  MEMOIR    OF 

"  The  principal  object  of  the  author  has  been  to  as- 
certain by  an  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  which 
these  words  occur,  whether  the  inspired  writers  used 
any  of  them  to  express  a  place  of  endless  misery  for 
the  \sicked.  Though  it  is  generally  allowed  that  the 
three  first  are  not  so  used,  yet,  as  some  of  the  texts 
in  which  these  words  occur,  are  still  quoted  in  proof 
of  this  docirine,  such  texts  are  considered. 

"As  it  is  universally  contended  that  the  word  Ge- 
henna is  always  used  by  the  sacred  writers  to  signify 
such  a  place  of  misery,  all  the  texts  in  which  it  oc- 
curs are  particularly  examined.  1  his  investigation  of 
the  above  words,  as  to  their  Scripture  usage,  has  end- 
ed in  the  conviction  that,  originally,  no  such  idea  was 
attached  to  them.  It  was  undertaken  merely  for  the 
author's  own  satisfaction  upon  this  deeply  interesting^ 
subject  to  the  human  race  ;  but  having  delivered  what 
he  had  written  in  a  series  of  discourses,  at  tlie  request 
of  many  who  heard  them,  they  are  now  submitted  for 
publication." 

Outline  of  ^^^^  author  pursued  this  object  with 
'''''''°'^- great  faithfulness;  and  the  plan  of  the 
work  undoubtedly  was  suggested  to  him  by  the 
course  which  his  mind  had  taken  in  the  investi- 
gation.    It  was  as  follows : 

Chap.  i. — Sheol^  Hades  and  Tartarus. 

Sec.  1st.  All  the  passages  of  Scripture  considered 
in  which  Sheol  occurs,  translated  pit,  grave  and  hell, 
in  the  common  version. 

Sec.  2d.  All  the  passages  in  which  Hades  occurs, 
translated  grave,  and  hell,  in  the  common  version, 
considered. 

Sec.  3d.  2  Peter  :  2,4,  considered.  This  is  the 
only  place  in  which  Tartarosas  is  used  and  is  trans- 
lated hell  in  the  common  version. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  127 

Chap.  ii. —  Gehenna. 

Sec.  1st.  Remarks  on  Dr.  Campbell's  views  of  Ge- 
henna, which  is  uniformly  rendered  hell  in  the  com- 
mon version. 

Sec.  2d.  A  number  of  facts  stated  which  are  not 
easily  accounted  for,  if  by  Gehenna,  the  sacred  writ- 
ers meant  a  place  of  endless  misery. 

Sec.  3d.  All  the  passages  in  which  Gehenna  oc- 
curs, considered. 

Sec.  4th.  Additional  facts  stated,  proving  that  Ge- 
henna was  not  used  by  the  sacred  writers  to  express 
a  place  of  endless  misery. 

Sec.  5th.  The  argument  arising  from  the  authority 
of  the  Targums  and  the  Apocrapha,  in  favor  of  end- 
less misery,  considered. 

Sec.  6th.  Objections  answered. 

Sec.  7th.  Concluding  remarks. 

The  work  came  out  in  Febru-     it  sets  aside  the 

doctrioe  of 

ary,  1824,  an  octavo  of  448  pages,  ^^ture  pumaiiment. 
and  followed  this  general  plan.  Mr.  Balfour's 
inquiries  into  the  Scriptural  import  of  tlfe  words 
rendered  hell,  had  led  him,  not  only  to  reject  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  but  the  doctrine 
of  punishment  altogether,  so  far  as  it  related  to 
the  future  life.  There  were  Universalists  who 
took  the  same  ground  with  Mr.  Balfour  in  this 
respect,  especially  Rev.  Hosea  Ballou,  of  Boston, 
and  that  very  large  class  of  Universalists  who 
sympathized  with  him  in  opinion  on  this  point. 
But  the  earlier  Universalists,  and  indeed  some 
at  the  time  of  which  we  are  treating,  held  that 


128  MEMOIR    OF 

although  hell  was  not  a  place  of  endless  misery, 
yet  it  was  a  place  of  a  purgatorial  punishment 
after  death.  When  Mr.  Balfour  first  avowed 
himself  to  be  a  Universalist,  there  was  a  some- 
what lively  interest  to  know  on  which  side  of 
this  question  of  future  limited  punishment  he 
would  take  ground.  But  with  his  wonted  frank- 
ness he  dispelled,  in  the  very  first  paragraph  of 
his  "Introduction,"  all  doubt  on  this  point. 

"  The  simple  object  of  the  author,  in  this  Inquiry, 
is,  to  examine  the  foundation  on  which  the  doctrme  of 
endless  misery  is  built.  This  doctrine  rests  on  the 
fact  or  ihe  falsehood  that  a  place  called  Ae//,  in  a  tuture 
state,  is  prepared  for  the  punishment  of  the  wicked. 
In  speaking,  atid  preaching,  and  writing  on  the  sub- 
ject, this  is  always  presumed  as  true.  It  is  taken  for 
granted  as  indisputable.  Most  Universali.sts  have 
conceded  this  to  their  opponents,  and  have  contended 
not  agaifcst  the  existence  of  such  a  place  of  misery, 
but  against  the  endless  duration  of  its  punishment. 
All  the  principal  writers  on  both  sides  of  this  ques- 
tion proceed  on  this  ground,  that  there  is  a  place  of 
future  punishment,  and  that  the  name  of  it  is  hell. 
Winchester,  Murray,  Chauncey,  Huntington  and  oth- 
ers, all  admit  that  hell  is  a  place  of  future  punishment. 
Edwards,  Strong,  and  others  who  oppose<l  them,  had 
no  occasion  to  prove  this,  but  only  to  show  that  it  was 
to  be  endless  in  its  duration.  This  Inquiry  is  princi- 
pally for  the  purpose  of  investigating,  if  what  has 
been  taken  for  granted  by  the  one  party,  and  conce- 
ded by  the  other,  is  a  doctrine  taught  in  Scripture.  If 
the  views  I  have  advanced  be  false,  it  still  leaves  the 
question  between  Universalists  and  their  opponents 
undisturbed.     If  they  are  found  upon  examination  to 


REV.     WALTER    BALFOUR.  129 

bs  true,  all  dispute  about  endless  misery  in  hell  mast 
of  coarse  cea->e,  for  if  no  sach  place  exists,  [in  the 
fature  statej  why  dispute  about  the  endless  duration 
of  its  punishment?  " 

The  word  Sheol,  as  Mr.  Balfoar  ^^^^.^^^^^^ 
showed,  occurred  in  the  Old  Testa-  -^^°^h-°^- 
ment  in  sixty-four  instances.  In  thirty-two  of 
these,  it  is  rendered  in  the  common  version,  pit 
and  grave,  and  in  thirty-two,  hell.  Mr.  Balfour 
examined  every  passage  by  itself,  and  havino- 
done  this,  he  came  to  the  following  conclusion  : 

"  1st.  The  word  translated  everlasting,  eternal,  for- 
ever, is  never  connected  with  Sheol  or  hell  by  any  of 
the  Old  Testament  writers.  If  they  indeed  believed 
that  this  was  a  place  of  punishment  for  the  wicked, 
and  that  it  was  endless  in  its  duration,  it  is  somewhat 
surprising  that  this  should  be  the  case.  Every  one 
knows  that  these  words  are  very  often  used  there,  but 
not  in  a  single  instance  do  the  inspired  writers  in  any 
way  use  them,  when  speaking  of  Sheol,  or  hell.  So 
far  from  this,  we  have  seen  that  in  some  of  the' texts, 
it  is  said,  h^ll  is  to  be  destroyed.  We  may  then  make 
an  appeal  to  every  candid  mind,  and  ask,  if  Sheol  or 
hell  in  the  Old  Testament  refers  to  a  place  of  eternal 
misery,  how  are  we  to  account  for  this?  The  fact  is 
certain.  To  account  for  it,  1  leave  to  those  who  be- 
lieve this  doctrine.  We  read,  to  be  sure,  in  books 
and  we  have  heard  it  also  in  sermons,  of  an  eternal 
hell,  but  such  language  is  not  found  once  in  all  the 
book  of  God,  nor  did  it  ever  drop  from  the  lips  of  any 
inspired  writer. 

''  •2J.  Another  fact  equally  certain,  is,  that  noi  only 
are  the  words  eternal,  everlasting,  or  forever,  omitted 
in  speaking  of  Sheol,  or  hell,   but  this  place  is  not 
y 


130  MEMOIR    OF 

spoken  about,  as  a  place  of  misery,  at  all.  Whether 
Sheol  is  translated  pit,  grave,  or  h^ll,  in  not  one  of 
the  passages,  is  it  described  as  a  place  of  misery  or 
punishment  for  the  wicked,  or  for  any  one  else.  Be- 
fore there  need  be  any  dispute,  whether  the  punish- 
ment in  this  place  is  to  be  of  eternal  duration,  we  have 
got  first  to  prove  that  it  is  a  place  of  punishment. 
But  as  this  place  is  Sheol  and  not  Gehenna,  I  pass 
this  over. 

"  3d.  But  so  far  from  its  being  a  place  of  misery, 
or  eternal  in  its  daration,  it  is  also  a  fact,  that  it  is 
described  as  a  place  of  insensibility  and  ignorance. 
We  are  told  that  there  is  "no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave,  or  Sheol, 
whither  thou  goest."  Eccles.  ix :  10.  Besides, 
Hezekiah,  we  have  seen,  said  Isaiah,  xxxviii :  18 — 
"  the  grave  cannot  praise  thee  ;  death  cannot  celebrate 
thee  ;  they  that  go  down  mto  the  pit  carmot  hope  for 
thy  truth."  I  ask,  could  those  persons  have  spoken 
in  this  manner,  it  they  believed  that  Sheol  or  hell 
was  a  place  of  punishment?  Yea;,  I  ask,  could  they 
in  truth  have  spoken  so,  if  their  ideas  about  Sheol 
were  the  same  as  Christians  aie  about  hell"?  we  think 
this  is  impossible." 

Mr.  Balfour  also  showed,  that  the  habits  of 
speech  of  believers  in  endless  misery  in  our  day- 
are  altogether  different  from  the  language  of  the 
Old  Testament  writers  on  the  subject  of  punish- 
ment, of  salvation,  and  of  the  state  of  the  de- 
parted. But  to  understand  all  that  is  said  on 
this  subject,  his  Inquiry  must  be  read. 

Mr.  Balfour  showed,  that  the  word 
Hades  occurred  eleven  times  in  the 


Esaniination 

ab   to   H.ADB3. 


i 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  131 

New  Testament,  in  ten  of  which  it  is  translated 
kell,^ud  in  one,  viz.,  1  Cor.  xv  :  55,  grave.  He 
showed  that  this  word  answered  precisely  to  the 
^eol  of  the  Old  Testament.  If  the  former  did 
not  signify  a  place  of  misery  in  the  future  state, 
so  neither  did  the  latter.  Mr.  Balfour  contended 
that  this  word  originally  had  no  reference  to  a 
place  of  future  torment.  The  account  of  the 
rich  man  in  Luke  xvi.,  23,  he  contended  is  a  para- 
bolic representation.  He  admitted  that  our  Lord 
might  here  allude  to  what  he  called  the  heathen 
notion  of  punishment  after  death,  but  not  to  re- 
cognize this  notion  as  truth,  any  more  than  he 
recognized  the  god  mammon,  when  he  said,  "  ye 
cannot  serve  God  and  mammon ;  "  or  Paul  the 
doctrine  of  witchcraft,  when  he  said,  "  0  foolish 
Galatians,  who  hath  bewitched  you;"  or  any 
more  than  we,  when  we  say,  such  an  one  has 
got  St.  Anthony's  fire,  another  St.  Vitu's  dance, 
recognize  the  influence  of  these  saints  in  pro- 
ducing these  disorders.  He  contended  that  the 
Jews  got  their  notion  of  future  punishment  from 
the  heathen,  in  proof  of  which  he  adduced  a  lu- 
minous quotation  from  Dr.  Campbell,  in  the  third 
section  of  this  chapter.  After  considering  all 
the  passages  in  which  Hades  occurs,  Mr.  Bal- 
four said,  "  These  are  all  the  passages  in  which 
9# 


132  MEMOIR    OF 

the  New  Testament  writers  use  the  word  Hades, 
and  which  is  once  translated  grave,  and  ten 
times  hell  in  the  common  version.  We  think 
all  must  admit  that  it  is  never  used  to  express  a 
place  of  endless  misery ;  and  some  evidence  has 
been  given  that  it  is  never  used  to  express  a  place 
of  punishment  of  any  kind." 

In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  Hades  in  the 
parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  Mr.  Bal- 
four further  showed,  that  the  apostles  could  not 
have  understood  the  Saviour  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment,  for  not  one  of 
them  ever  afterward  spoke  of  Hades  as  a  place, 
or  state,  of  future  punishment,  a  fact  which  is 
altogether  unaccountable  on  the  supposition  that 
Jesus  intended  to  signify  such  a  state  by  the  use 
of  that  word.  Let  this  great  fact  be  well  re- 
membered. 

In  concluding  his  remarks  on  Hades  ]\Ir.  Bal- 
four says, — 

"  1st.  It  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  man,  that  what 
the  Hebrew  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  expressed 
by  the  word  Sheol,  the  Greeks  expressed  by  the  word 
Hades.  Both  words  appear  to  have  been  used  to  ex- 
press the  grave  or  state  of  the  dead. 

"2d.  But  observe,  that  the  heathen  Greeks  seem 
not  ordy  to  have  attached  similar  ideas  to  the  word 
Hades,  as  the  Hebrew  writers  did  to  the  word  Sheol, 
bat  also  the  additional  idea,  that  in  Hades  persons 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  133 

were  punished  or  rewarded,  according  to  their  merits 
or  demerits  in  the  present  world.  This  was  their  own 
addition  ;  for  no  such  idea  seems  to  he  conveyed  in 
all  the  Old  Testament,  by  the  word  Sheol.  The  evi- 
dence of  this  adduced  above,  we  think  will  be  allowed 
conclusive. 

"  If  the  Jews  did  not  imbibe  the  idea,  that  Hades 
was  a  place  of  punishment,  from  the  heathen,  let  it 
be  shown  from  what  source  the  Jews  derived  this  in- 
formation. They  attached  no  such  idea  to  the  word 
Sheol,  nor  does  the  Old  Testament  contain  such  in- 
formation. The  doctrine  must  either  be  from  heaven 
or  of  men.  I  have  attempted  to  prove  that  it  is  not 
from  heaven  It  becomes  those  who  believe  it,  to 
show  that  it  is  not  of  men,  or  cease  from  believinfj  it, 
and  from  quoting  the  texts  in  which  Siieol  and  Hades 
occur,  in  proof  of  it.  The  very  circumstance,  that 
only  Hades,  and  not  Sheol,  is  represented  as  a  place 
of  torment,  shows  in  part,  that  this  doctrine  is  of 
heathen  origin.  Hades  is  a  Greek  word  ;  and  it  is 
well  known  that  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
heathen,  and  Hebrew  that  of  the  Jews. 

"  3d.  Since  neither  Sheol  nor  Hades,  nor  even  the 
word  hell,  in  English,  originally  signified  a  place  of 
endless  misery,  we  have  a  few  questions  to  put  to 
those  who  believe  in  this  doctrine.  We  ask,  then,  is 
it  not  a  perversion  of  the  divine  oracles,  to  quote  any 
of  the  texts  in  which  Sheol  or  Hades  occurs,  to  prove 
it?  It  is  well  known  that  such  texts  are  often  quoted 
for  this  purpose.  But  I  ask  again,  is  it  not  a  very- 
great  imposition  upon  the  ignorant,  to  quote  such 
texts  in  proof  of  this  doctrine?  The  simple,  honest- 
hearted  English  reader  of  his  Bible,  sees  the  word 
hell  often  used  by  the  sacred  writers.  He  lias  been 
taught  from  a  child,  that  hell  means  a  place  of  end- 
less misery  for  the  wicked.  Every  book  he  reads, 
every  sermon  he  hears,  all  tend  to  deepen  his  early 


134  MEMOIR   OF 

impressions,  and  confirm  him  in  this  opinion.  Those 
who  know  better,  are  not  much  disposed  to  undeceive 
him  about  such  mistaken  views  and  wrong  impres- 
sions. On  the  one  hand,  they  are  perhaps  deterred 
from  it  by  a  false  fear  of  disturbing  public  opinion, 
and  on  the  other,  by  reluctance  to  encounter  the  odium 
of  the  Christian  public,  in  being  looked  on  as  heretics. 
Select  the  most  celebrated  preacher  you  can  find,  and 
let  him  frankly  and  fully  tell  his  audience,  that  neither 
Sheol,  nor  Hades,  nor  eveii  our  woid  hell,  did,  orig- 
inally, mean  a  place  of  endless  misery,  and  his  celeb- 
rity is  at  an  end.  He  would  from  that  moment  be 
considered  as  an  heretic,  and  his  former  admirers 
would  now  be  his  most  warm  opposers.  Bu',  I  ask 
again,  and  I  solemnly  put  it  to  every  man's  conscience, 
who  professes  to  fear  God, — ought  not  men  to  be  hon- 
estly and  plainly  told  the  truth  about  this,  let  the  con- 
sequences be  what  they  may?  Are  we  at  liberty  to 
pervert  the  Scriptures  in  favor  of  any  sect,  or  system 
in  the  world  1 

"  4th.  The  translators  of  our  common  English  ver- 
sion appear  to  have  had  more  correct  ideas  about 
Sheol,  Hades,  or  hell,  than  most  people  who  read 
their  translation.  They  certainly  were  at  some  pains 
to  guard  us  against  attacliing  to  the  word  hell  the  idea 
of  a  place  of  endless  misery.  In  many  places  where 
they  render  Sheol  and  Hades  by  the  word  hell,  they 
have  put  grave  in  the  margin.  Besides,  let  it  be  re- 
membered that  the  word  hell  originally  signified  the 
same  as  Sheol  and  Hades.  If  was  then  the  very  best 
word  they  could  use  in  rendering  these  two  words. 
If  men  have  affixed  a  different  sense  to  the  word  hell, 
the  translators  are  not  to  blame. 

"  5th.  Several  very  serious  evils  arise  from  under- 
standing Sheol  or  Hades  to  mean  a  place  of  endless 
misery.     In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  perveision  of  those 


REV.    AVALTER     BALFOUR. 


135 


texts  ia  which  these  words  occur.  This  perversion  of 
them  leads  to  a  misunderstanding  of  many  others. 
By  this  means,  the  knowledge  such  texts  convey,  is 
not  only  in  some  degree  lost,  but  our  knowledge  of 
the  word  of  God  is  greatly  retarded,  and  our  minds 
are  perplexed  and  embarrassed  on  other  connected 
subjects.  Every  text  of  Scripture  misunderstood, 
lays  a  foundation  for  a  misunderstanding  of  others ; 
and  thus  error  is  not  only  rendered  perpetual,  but  pro- 
gressive. 

"  But  this  is  not  all.  Understanding  Sheol  and 
Hades  to  mean  a  place  of  endless  misery,  is  pervert- 
ing God's  word  to  caricature  himself.  It  is  putting 
our  own  sense  on  his  words,  to  make  him  say  things 
ag'dinst  ourselves  which  he  never  intended.  It  is  giv- 
ing a  false  color  to  the  lanj/uage  of  the  Bible,  that  we 
may  support  the  false  views  we  entertain  of  his  char- 
acter, and  his  dealings  with  the  children  of  men. 

"  6th.  I  may  just  add  about  Hades  Vvhat  was  no- 
ticed about  Sheol,  that  we  never  find  the  words  eter- 
nal, everlastino,  or  forever,  used  in  connexion  with  it, 
or  concerning  it.  We  never  read  of  an  everlasting  or 
eternal  Hades  or  hell,  or  that  men  are  to  be  punished 
in  it  forever.  Nothing  like  this  is  to  be  found  in 
Sciipture.  Such  epithets  added  to  the  word  hell, 
found  in  books  and  sermons,  are  among  the  improve- 
ments in  divinity  which  man's  wisdom  teacheih.  The 
word  hell  is  first  perverted  from  its  original  significa- 
tion, and  then  the  word  eternal  is  added  to  it,  to  make 
the  punishment  of  endless  duration." 

The   word    Tartarus   occurs   but  ^^^^.^^^.^^  ^ 
once    in    the    Bible,   2   Peter  ii :  4.    ^°^-^-- 
Mr,  Balfour  explained  this  passage  on  the  same 
principle  on  which  he  interpreted  the  use  of  Ha- 
des by  our  Lord  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man. 


136  MEMOIR    OF 

It  was  a  reference  by  Peter  to  a  heathen  notion 
by  way  of  illustraiion,  but  with  no  intent  of  re- 
cognizing it  as  truth.  jVlr.  B.  concluded  this 
section  by  showing  the  following  results  : 

"  1st.  The  doctrine  of  punishment  in  Tartarus 
seems  to  have  originated  with  legislators,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  restraining  the  passions  of  the  multitude,  and 
to  alarm  '  them  on  all  sides  with  the  most  frightful 
representations,'  Ihe  Persians,  Chaldeans,  Kgyp- 
lians  and  Greeks,  all  introduced  punishment  alter 
death.  The  Jewish  nation  is  an  exception.  Some 
deistical  writers  have  even  blamed  Moses  as  a  legis- 
lator for  not  introducing  eternal  punishment  into  his 
code  of  laws,  as  a  curb  on  men  against  licentiousness. 
It  is  generally  allowed  that  the  punishments  threat- 
ened in  the  Old  Tesiamenl  are  of  a  temporal  nature. 

"2d.  From  the  above  quotation,  it  appears  that 
though  punishment  after  death  in  Tartarus  was  be- 
lieved by  the  heathen  generally,  yet  the  better  inform- 
ed among  them  did  not  believe  '  in  thefalhs  of  hell, ^ 
but  turned  tliem  into  ridicule.  Juvenal  took  no  part 
in  those  opinions  of  the  vulgar  ;  and  Yirgil  says — 
'  it  w  as  the  province  of  philosophy  alone  to  shake  oft' 
the  yoke  of  custom,  riveted  by  education.'  Is  it  not 
then  strange,  that  a  doctrine  which  was  invented  by 
heathens,  and  treated  with  contempt  by  their  own 
wisest  men,  should  be  a  fundamental  article  in  the 
faith  of  christians?     How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for? 

"  3d.  I  may  just  add,  that  when  the  heathen  were 
made  converts  to  the  Christian  faith,  all  allow  that 
many  of  their  previous  notions  were  soon  incorporated 
wiih  it.  This,  together  with  the  erroneous  views 
held  by  the  Jewish  converts,  laid  a  foundation  for 
such  a  corruption  of  Christianity,  which,  if  it  were 
not  attested  by  evidence  indisputable,  could  not  be  be- 
lieved.    That  punishment  in  Hades,  or  Tartaius,  af- 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR. 


137 


ter  death,  is  but  a  part  of  this  cOTruption  of  Christian* 
ity  derived  from  the  heathen,  at  least  deserves  to  be 
seriously  considered.  The  evidence  we  have  adduced, 
proving  that  it  is,  we  submit  to  the  reader's  judg- 
ment. 

"  To  conclude  this  chapter.  We  have  shown,  that 
neither  Sheol,  Hades^  nor  Tartarus,  is  ever  used  by 
the  sacred  writers  to  signify  a  place  of  endless  misery 
for  the  wicked.  This  was  all  we  were  bound  to  do 
in  opposing  the  common  opinion  on  this  subject.  But 
we  have  also  shown  that  this  opinion  originated  with 
the  heathen,  and  that  ihe  Jews  learned  it  from  them. 
To  invalidate  the  evidence  which  has  been  produced, 
the  very  reverse  must  be  proved.'' 

The   word  Gehenna  had  been  re-  ^^^   .  ,,.  ^  „ 

i:>xain.naticn  as 

lied  on,  by  learned  theologians,  as 
the  word  by  which  they  were  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  misery.  If  they  gave  up  this 
w^ord,  all  support  of  the  doctrine  referred  to  was 
gone.  Here  they  had  made  their  last  stand; 
and  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  they  were  to  be 
driven  from  this  point,  without  the  greatest  ef- 
fort to  sustain  themselves  which  they  were  ca- 
pable of  making.  Mr.  Balfour  knew  this.  He 
knew,  therefore,  that  his  fullest  attention  must 
be  given  to  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Ge- 
henna,.    He  says, — 

"  Vv'e  have  now  arrived  at  a  part  of  this  Inquiry, 
which  requires  the  utmost  attention.  The  Xew  Tes- 
tament is  considered  as  clearly  and  decidedly  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  endless  misery  to  all  the  wicked,  and 


J  38 


MEMOIR    OF 


Gehenna  is  the  place  in  which  they  are  said  to  suffer 
it.  The  truth  ox  falsehood  of  this  doctrine  is  then  at 
issue  upon  the  decision  of  the  question — What  is  the 
Scripture  meaning  and  usage  of  the  word  Gehenna?  " 

He  devotes  one  section  to  reviewing  the  re- 
marks of  Dr.  Campbell  on  the  word  Gehenna^ 
in  which  he  shows  that  the  learned  author  had 
acknowledged  that  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
terms  in  the  Old  Testament  signified  merely 
temporal  punishment ;  but  that  the  word  Gehen- 
na had  come,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  to  signify  a 
place  of  endless  punishment.  The  latter  posi- 
tion Mr.  Balfour  disputes,  and,  in  the  Sequel, 
renders  it  utterly  untenable. 
Important  facta  ^0  gives  a  serios  of  facts  to  show 
as  to  Gehenna.  ^^^^  Gehewm  is  not  uscd  by  the 
New  Testament  writers  to  signify  a  place  of  fu- 
ture punishment. 

"  1st,  Then,  let  it  be  kept  in  remembrance,  that 
neither  Gehenna  nor  any  other  word  is  used  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  express  a  place  of  endless  misery 
for  the  wicked.  This  we  presume  will  be  admitted 
as  established  from  the  preceding  pait  of  our  exam- 
ination. It  is  evident  from  chap.  i.  that  Sheol,  Hades, 
and  Tartarus,  have  no  such  meaning. 

"  2d.  The  word  Gehenna  occurs  just  twelves  limes 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  always  translated  hell 
in  our  English  version.  The  following  aie  all  the 
places  where  this  word  is  found:  Matt,  v  :  22,  29, 
30,   and   xviii :   9,   Mark  ix  :  43,  47;    Luke  xh :  5  ; 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  139 

Matt.  X  :  23,  atid  xxiii :  15,  33  ;  James  iii :  ^;.  T  only 
refer  to  these  texts  now,  because  they  shall  all  be 
particularly  considered  afterwards.  The  fact  that  this 
word  is  only  fonnd  twelve  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, I  notice  for  the  following^  reasons  : 

*'  It  is  contended  by  Dr.  Campbell,  and  I  believe  is 
universally  admitted,  that  Gehenna  is  the  only  word 
which  signifies  the  place  of  endless  punishment  for 
the  wicked.  But  do  most  Christians  know  that  the 
word  hell,  so  much  talked  of  and  preached  about,  is 
only  found  twelve  times  in  the  Scriptures'?  But  a  lit- 
tle reflection  may  convince  any  one  that,  properly 
speaking-,  it  w^as  not  used  originally  so  often  as  twelve 
times.  It  occurs  eleven  times  in  the  gospels  written 
by  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  and  by  comparing  the 
places,  it  is  easily  seen,  that  these  historians  only  re- 
late some  of  the  same  discourses,  in  which  our  Lord 
used  this  word.  Though  it  occurs  then  eleven  times 
in  the  three  histories  given  us  by  those  evangelists,  it 
is  plain  it  was  not  so  often  used  by  him  when  he  ut- 
tered his  discourses.  Viewing  the  matter  in  this  light, 
and  surely  it  is  the  true  one,  few  words  of  such  im- 
portance occur  so  seldom  in  the  New  Testament  as 
the  word  Gehenna, 

******** 

"  3d.  Another  fact  is,  that  the  word  Gehenna,  or 
hell,  is  used  by  our  Lord,  and  by  James,  but  by  no 
other  person  in  the  New  Testament.  This  fact,  every 
person  who  can  read  English,  may  satisfy  himself 
about  in  the  course  of  a  few  minutes,  by  reading  all 
the  texts  referred  to  above  where  the  word  Gehenna 
is  found.  Is  it  not,  then,  somew'hat  surprising,  that 
it  should  only  be  used  twelve  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  still  more  surprising,  that  our  Lord  and 
J-ames  should  be  the  only  persons  who  say  anything 
about  it? 

******** 

"  4th.  Another  fact  deserving  our  attention,  is,  that 


140 


MEMOIR    OF 


all  that  is  said  about  Gehenna  in  the  way  of  threaten- 
ing-, or  in  any  other  shape,  was  spoken  to  Jews.  Jews, 
and  they  only,  were  the  persons  addressed,  when 
speaking  of  Gehenna.  It  is  not  once  named  to  the 
Gentiles  in  all  the  New  Testament,  nor  are  any  of 
them  ever  threatened  with  such  a  punishment.  This 
fact  is  indisputable.  The  evidence  of  its  truth  does 
not  depend  on  a  tedious,  intricate  process  of  reason- 
ing, which  few  persons  could  go  through  and  decide 
about.  All  that  any  one  has  to  do  is  to  read  all  the 
texts  referied  to,  in  which  Gehenna  occurs,  in  con- 
nexion with  their  contexts,  and  he  must  be  satisfied 
of  the  correctness  of  my  statement. 

******** 

"  5th.  Another  very  important  fact  to  be  noticed, 
is,  that  the  chief  part  of  all  that  our  Lord  said  about 
Gehenna,  was  spoken  to  his  disciples.  Out  of  twelve 
times  in  which  Gehenna  or  hell  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  only  two  instances  is  a  word  said 
about  it  to  the  unbelieving  part  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
In  nine  of  those  places  our  Lord  was  evidently  ad- 
dressmg  his  disciples,  and  in  the  other  place  where 
Gehenna  is  mentioned,  James  was  addressing  believ- 
ing Jews  of  the  twelve  tribes,  who  were  scattered 
abroad.  This  fact  is  also  so  notorious  that  the  te.vts 
where  the  word  Gehenna  occurs,  need  only  to  be  con- 
sulted, to  satisfy  any  one  of  its  truth.  It  is  |not 
more  certain  that  this  word  occurs  just  twelve  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  than  it  is  certainly  used  ten 
times  in  speaking  to  the  disciples,  and  only  twice  to 
the  unbelieving  Jews. 

**  *  *  **** 

"  6th.  But  another  fact  which  deserves  some  no- 
lice,  is,  that  in  all  the  places  where  Gehenna  or  hell 
is  mentioned,  the  persons  addressed  are  supposed  to 
be  acquainted  with  its  meaning.  No  explanation  is 
asked,  and  none  is  given,  nor  is  it  thought,  either  by 
speaker  or  hearers,  to  be  necessary.     The  Jews,  who 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  141 

are  always  the  persons  addressed,  appear  to  have  un- 
derstood what  our  Lord  meant  by  the  punishment  or 
damnation  of  Gehenna,  as  well  as  what  was  meant  by 
stoning  to  death.  The  very  first  time  ii  is  mentioned, 
Matt.  V.  22,  the  disciples  had  no  more  eccasion  to  ask 
our  Lord  what  he  meant  by  Gehenna,  than  what  he 
meant  by  the  judgment  and  council.  If  this  be  true, 
and  we  think  it  will  not  be  disputed,  a  very  important 
question  arises, — how  came  they  to  understand  that 
Gehenna  meant  a  place  of  eternal  punishment  for  all 
the  wicked  ?  From  what  source  did  they  derive  their 
information  concerning  this?  I  cannot  conceive  of 
any  sources  from  whence  they  could  pi)ssib]y  derive 
this  information,  unless  from  one  or  other  of  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"  1st.  From  immediatp  inspiration.  No  evidence 
that  this  was  the  case  can  be  produceed,  nor  is  it  like- 
ly to  be  asserted  by  any  person  who  has  considered 
the  subject. 

"2d.  The  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist.  But  as 
John  never  said  a  word  about  Gehenna  to  his  hearers, 
this  cannot  be  contended  for  by  any  one. 

"3d.  Did  they  then  derive  their  information  from 
the  insti'iictions  and  explanations  of  the  Saviour? 
Neither  can  this  be  contended  for  by  any  one  who  has 
read  the  four  gospels.  Our  Lord  on  no  one  occasion 
ever  gave  any  such  explanation  of  Gehenna.  No  man 
will  say  he  ever  did. 

"4th.  Did  they  derive  their  information  from  Me 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  which  they  had  in  their 
hands?  This  they  could  not  do,  for  we  have  seen 
above,  that  it  did  not  contain  much  inf(jrmation.  They 
could  not  learn  a  doctrine  from  it,  which  Dr.  Camp- 
bell and  others  declare  it  did  not  teach.  We  have 
seen  what  the  Old  Testaiament  leaches  about  Gehen- 
na, but  not  a  word  does  it  say  that  it  means  a  place 
of  future  eternal  misery  for  the  wicked. 

"  5th.  The  only  other  source   from  whence  they 


142  MEMOIR    OF 

could  learn  that  Gehenna  meant  a  place  of  endless 
punishment  for  the  wicked,  was  the  writings  oi  falli- 
ble, uninspired  men.  Accordingly,  no  other  alterna- 
tive was  left  Dr.  Campbell  but  to  say,  that  '  Gehenna, 
in  process  of  time,  came  to  be  used  in  this  sense,  and 
at  length  came  to  be  confined  to  it.'  Here,  then  is 
the  way  in  which  it  is  said  Gehenna  came  to  have  the 
sense  which  is  now  commonly  given  it.'' 

Autbe  passages  ^^^1  Stating  thcse  very  important 
considered.  ^^^^^^  ^^  Balfour  proceeds  to  con- 
sider every  passage  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  the  word  Gehenna  occurs.  But  we  must 
refer  to  the  work  itself  for  what  he  says  on  this 
point.  Suffice  it  to  remark,  that  he  clearly,  ful- 
ly, and  unquestionably  shows,  that  the  word  is 
not,  in  a  single  instance,  used  by  the  sacred 
writers  to  signify  a  place  of  punishment  in  the 
future  state.  He  considers  every  passage  in 
connexion  with  its  context,  and  with  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  spoken,  and  comes 
to  the  conclusion  above  named  without  a  solitary 
doubt  being  upon  his  mind.  There  is  a  fund  of 
Scriptural  criticism  in  this  part  of  the  work, 
which  ought  never  to  be  lost.  Let  successive 
authors  and  preachers,  who  love  the  Bible  in 
its  true  sense,  keep  these  very  important  ex- 
planations, collations,  reasonings  and  conclu- 
sions, before  the  people.  They  must  not  be  lost, 
and  thank  God  they  cannot  be.     They  are  be- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  143 

fore  the  world ;  and  the  light  of  them  can  no 
more  be  extinguished  than  the  light  of  the  sun. 
To  Mr.  Balfour,  more  than  to  any  other  man, 
must  be  ascribed  the  credit  of  bringing  out  and 
setting  in  order  these  arguments  and  interpreta- 
tions. 

Having  completed  the  examination  of  ^^^.^^^^^ 
all  the  texts,  Mr.  Balfour  proceeds  to  give  ^'^^' 
additional  facts,  showing  that  the  word  Gehenna 
was  not  used  by  the  sacred  writers  to  denote  a 
place  of  punishment  in  the  future  state.  We 
give  merely  an  outline  of  these  facts,  referring 
the  reader  to  the  work  itself  for  the  full  argu- 
ment. 

"  1st.  If  Gehenna  means  a  place  of  endless  misery 
for  the  wicked,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  apostles  never 
preached  it,  either  to  Jeivs  or  Gentiles.  The  historv 
of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles  contains  an  accotmt  of 
their  preaching  for  thirty  years,  but  not  once  is  the 
subject  oVidl  or  Gehenna  torments  mentioned  by  them. 
They  were  commanded  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature,  and  they  did  so,  but  to  no  creature  under 
heaven  did  they  ever  preach  this  doctrine.  No  living 
being  did  ihey  ever  threaten  with  such  a  punishment. 
They  addressed  the  worst  of  charactecs,  but  to  none 
of  them  did  they  ever  say,  '  how  can  ye  escape  the 
damnation  of  Gehenna?  ' 

"  2d.  Another  fact  is,  that  the  salvation  revealed 
by  the  go:>pel,  is  never  spoken  of  as  a  salvation  from 
hell  or  endless  misery.  No  such  salvation  was  ever 
promised  or  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  no 


144  MEMOIR    OF 

such  salvation  was  ever  preached  by  Christ,  or  his 
'  apostles.  Oar  Lord  received  the  name  Jesus,  because 
he  should  save  his  peofle  from  their  sins.  But  I  do  not 
find  that  he  received  this  name,  or  any  other,  because 
he  should  save  them  from  hell  Our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  in  their  preaching,  proposed  by  it  to  turn 
men  from  darkness  to  light :  from  the  power  of  satan 
unto  God  ;  from  idols  to  serve  the  living  God  ;  from 
the  course  of  this  world  ;  and  from  all  sin  to  holiness  ; 
but  where  do  we  ever  read  of  their  proposing  to  save 
them  from  hell  ?  No  such  salvation  was  preached  by 
our  Lord.  In  all  the  above  texts,  where  he  speaks  of 
hell,  he  was  not  preaching  the  gospel,  but  addressing 
the  Jews  about  the  temporal  calamities  coming  on 
them  as  a  people.  In  no  instance  did  he  ever  exhort 
men  to  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  be- 
cause they  were  exposed  to  hell  tormenis  in  a  future 
state.  So  far  from  this,  in  nine  instances  out  of  elev- 
en, where  Gehenna  is  used  by  him,  he  was  addressing 
his  disciples.  It  is  of  no  use  to  observe,  that  his  apos- 
tles never  made  use  of  the  punishment  of  hell  to  in- 
duce men  to  repentance,  for  they  do  not  once  name  it 
in  all  their  writings.  James  is  the  only  exception, 
who  mentions  hell  once,  and  that  only  in  a  figurative 
sense.  Nothing  is  said  in  our  Lord's  commission  to 
his  apostles  about  hell,  and  as  little  is  said  of  it  by 
them  in  their  execution  of  it.  To  Jew  and  Gentile, 
bond  and  free,  they  are  all  silent  about  it.  It  is  never  ^ 
mentioned  by  them  to  any  persons,  on  any  occasion,  ' 
or  in  any  connexion,  or  on  any  subject. 

*■'*  *  *  *  *         *         * 

"  3d.  Supposing  that  hell  is  a  place  of  endless  mis- 
ery for  the  wicked,  it  will  not  be  an  easy  matter  to 
vindicate  either  the  character  of  our  Lord  or  of  his 
apostles. 

It  will  not  be  easy  to  vindicate  their  character  for 
jidehly  to  God,  or  to  the  souls  of  men.  It  is  certain 
our  Lord    was   faithful    to  him  who  appointed  hira. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  145 

The  apostles  were  also  faithful,  in  declaring  the  whole 
counsel  of  God.  But  can  all  this  be  true,  if  they 
knew  that  hell  was  a  place  of  eternal  misery,  and  that 
all  the  wurld  stood  exposed  to  it,  yet  said  nothing  to 
them  about  it?  It  is  true  the  Saviour  mentions  hell 
nine  times  to  his  disciples,  and  twice  to  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews,  but  we  have  seen  that  he  did  not  refer  to 
such  a  place  of  misery.  Neither  he  nor  his  apostles 
ever  used  the  word  in  speaking  to  the  Gentiles.  Now 
I  ask,  is  this  like  being  faithful?  Is  this  being  half 
so  faithful  as  most  preachers  are  in  our  day  ?  We 
think  every  candid  man  must  say  no  ;  it  is  rather  be- 
ing very  unfaithful,  if  they  indeed  believed  this  doc- 
trine as  it  is  commonly  received  among  us.  Let  it 
then  be  accounted  tor,  how  preaching  hell  as  a  place 
of  endless  misery  now  is  so  much  a  daty,  since  it  was 
not  so  accounted  by  the  apostles,  nor  even  by  our  Lord 
himself- 

"4th.  The  Old  Testatment  is  often  quoted  in  the 
New,  but  it  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  though  quo- 
ted by  our  Lord  when  speaking  about  hell,  or  Gehen- 
na, it  is  not  quoted  to  show  that  hell  was  a  place  of 
eternal  misery,  but  in  reference  to  temporal  punish- 
ment. Indeed,  it  was  impossible  for  our  Lord  or  his 
apostles  to  quote  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  that  hell 
was  such  a  place  of  m^ery ;  for  it  is  acknowledged 
by  Dr.  Campbell  and  others,  that  in  this  sense  Gehen- 
na or  hell  does  not  occur  there.  They  could  not  make 
a  quotation  in  proof  ot  this  from  it,  for  it  did  not  af- 
ford them  anything  to  quote.  Well,  permit  me  to 
ask,  why  our  Lord  did  quote  the  Old  Testament,  and 
quoted  it  on  the  very  texts  in  which  hell  or  Gehenna 
is  spoken  of?  In  Mark  ix.  considered  above,  our  Lord 
expressly  quotes  a  passage  from  Isaiah,  when  speak- 
ing concarning  hell  to  his  disc.iple;^.  In  other  places 
he  seems  to  allude  to  others.  Had  our  Lord  then 
meant  to  use  Gehenna  or  hell  in  a  different  sense  from 
10 


146  MEMOIR  OF 

that  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  it  not  calculated  to 
mislead  his  hearers  thus  lo  quote  iti 

"  5th.  If  there  he  a  place  of  endless  misery  for  the 
wicked,  is  it  not  another  remarkable  fact  that  the  He- 
brew, Greek,  and  English  languages  originally  had 
no  name  for  this  place?  We  have  seen  from  Dr. 
Campbell,  that  Gehenna  does  not  occur  in  this  sense 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  that  it  is  not  a  Greek  word  ; 
that  it  is  not  found  in  the  Septuagint,  nor  in  the  Gre- 
cian classics.  It  is  originally  '  a  compound  of  the 
two  Hebrew  words  gia  enm,  ge  hinno?n,  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  a  place  near  Jerusalem,  of  which  we  hear 
first  in  the  book  of  Joshua  xv.  8.'  Let  us  also  see 
what  he  says  about  our  English  word  hell.  Speaking 
of  Hades,  in  his  sixth  dissertaiion,  he  says:  'To 
this  the  word  hell  in  its  primitive  signification  perfect- 
ly corresponded.  For,  at  first  it  denoted  only  what 
was  secret  or  concealed.  This  word  is  found  vvilh 
little  variation  of  form,  and  precisely  in  the  same 
meaning,  m  all  the  Teutonic  dialects.  But  though 
our  word  hell,  in  its  original  signification,  was  more 
adapted  to  express  the  sense  of  Hades  than  cf  Ge- 
henna, it  is  not  so  now.  When  we  speak  as  Chris- 
tians, we  always  express  by  it  the  place  of  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  after  the  general  judgment,  as 
opposed  to  heaven,  the  plice  of  the  reward  of  the 
righteous.'  It  is  very  evident  from  this,  that  the  word 
hell  did  not  originally  signify  a  place  of  endless 
misery. 

*'  It  is  then  a  very  plain  case,  that  for  this  place  of 
endless  misery,  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and  English  lan- 
guages did  not  originally  furnish  a  name.  We  have 
then  to  ask,  had  the  inspired  writers  any  idea  of  such 
a  place  of  misery?  If  they  had,  it  is  evident  they 
wanted  a  name  for  it  to  express  it  to  others.  If  they 
have  not  expressed  it  by  any  word  to  others,  how  does 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR,  147 

any  man  know  that  they  entertained  such  an  idea? 
We  have  seen  persons  use  words  to  which  they  had 
no  distinct  ideas.  And  ue  have  also  seen  persons 
having  ideas,  which  they  could  not  very  easily  ex- 
press in  appropriate  language  to  others.  But  we  be- 
lieve it  is  a  singular  case,  that  the  Bible  is  said  to  re- 
veal a  place  of  endless  misery,  yet  the  inspired  wri- 
ters had  no  name  for  it.  It  will  not  do  to  say, — did 
not  our  Lord  call  it  Gehenna,  and  did  not  our  transla- 
tors call  it  hell'  No;  this  will  never  do  ;  for  we 
have  seen  that  the  word  Gehenna  is  borrowed  from 
the  Old  Testament,  yet  this  is  not  its  sense  there. 
And  we  have  seen  from  an  examination  of  all  the  pas- 
sages where  it  occurs  in  the  New,  that  our  Lord  did 
not  by  Gehenna  mean  a  place  of  endless  misery.  Yea, 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  conceded  by  those  who  believed 
Gehenna  to  mean  a  place  of  endless  misery,  that  the 
word  hell,  in  its  original  signification,  had  no  such 
meaning.  It  is  surely  then  a  very  proper  question  lo 
be  asked,  who  changed  the  words  Gehenna  and  hell 
from  their  original  signification  to  mean  a  place  ot 
endless  misery?  We  shall  see  in  the  next  section 
that  the  writers  of  the  Targums  and  the  apocrypha 
are  appealed  to  for  this  change,  that  this  change  was 
gradually  produced,  and  finally  Gehenna  was  used  ex- 
clusively to  mean  such  a  place  of  misery.  Who  gave 
this  new  sense  to  the  word  hell,  or  whether  its  change 
of  sense  was  gradual  or  sudden,  I  can  afford  no  infor- 
mation. It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  this  was 
not  its  original  signification  ;  and  this  fact  is  attested 
by  Dr.  Campbell,  Parkhursi  and  others,  all  Arm  be- 
lievers in  the  doctrine  of  hell  torments. 

"  6th.  Another  fact  deserving  our  consideration,  is, 
that  Christians,  when  they  speak  of  hell,  adopt  the 
phraseology  used  about  Sheol  and  Hades,  rather  than 
Gehenna,  though  it  is  contended  that  Gehenna  is  the 
word  which  signifies  hell,  or  the  place  of  endless  mis- 
10=^ 


148  MEMOIR    OF 

ery.  I  shall  explain  what  I  mean.  For  example,  it 
is  evident  upon  an  inspection  of  the  passages  in  which 
Sheol,  Hades  and  Gehenna  occur,  that  Gehenna,  for 
depth,  is  never  contrasted  with  heaven  for  height,  like 
Sheol  and  Hades.  Nor  do  we  read  of  persons  going 
down  to  Gehenna,  of  the  depths  of  Gehenna,  or  of 
the  lowest  Gehenna.  Neither  do  we  read  of  the  gates 
of  Gehenna,  nor  of  the  pains  of  Gehenna.  All  these 
things  are  said  of  Sheol  and  Hades,  as  we  have  seen 
in  a  former  part  of  this  Inquiry.  Besides,  no  repre- 
sentations are  given  of  Gehenna  as  of  Sheol  and  Ha- 
des, as  if  all  the  dead  or  even  the  wicked  were  there. 
******** 

"  7th.  Another  fact  deserving  some  notice,  is,  that 
the  punishment  of  hell  or  Gehenna  is  never  once 
spoken  of  as  a  punishment  of  the  spirit,  separate  from 
the  body  in  an  intermediate  state,  nor  as  a  punish- 
ment for  both  body  and  spirit,  after  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead, 

****##*# 

"  8th.  Closely  connected  with  the  last  fact  is  anoth- 
er, that  the  learned  seem  to  believe  in  two  places  of 
future  punishment,  and  the  common  people  only  in 
one.  L)r.  Campbell,  we  have  seen,  declares  that  Ge- 
henna is  the  place  of  eternal  punishment  for  all  the 
wicked.  He  also  thinks  that  Hades  is  an  intermedi- 
ate punishment  until  the  resurrection  ;  but  that  this 
place  is  then  to  be  destroyed.  If  it  be  true,  then,  that 
Hades  is  one  place  of  punishment,  and  Gehenna  anoth- 
er, it  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  there  are  two  places  of 
future  punishment,  the  one   temporary,  and  the  other 

after  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

******** 

"  9th.  Another  fact  is,  that  though  we  read  of  the 
sea,  death  and  Hades,  delivering  up  the  dead  which 
are  in  them,  yet  we  never  read  of  Gehenna's  deliver- 
ing up  anything  dead  or  alive.  Now  let  us  suppose 
that  at  death  the  body  goes  to  Hades,  the  grave,  or 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR  149 

State  of  the  dead,  and  the  spirit  goes  to  Gehenna  or 
hell,  to  suffer  punishment  until  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  If  this  commonly  received  doctrine  be  true,  is 
it  not  as  rational  to  think  that  we  should  read  in  Scrip- 
ture of  Gehenna  or  hell's  delivering  up  the  spirits  of 
the  wicked  at  the  resurrection,  as  that  Hades  or  the 
grave  should  deliver  up  their  bodies  1  In  order  to  a 
reunion  at  this  period,  it  is  just  as  necessary  that  the 
spirits  should  come  forth  from  the  one  place,  as  their 
bodies  from  the  other.  But  nothing  like  this  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible. 

"  lOth.  Another  important  fact  deserving  our  no- 
tice, is,  that  none  of  the  original  words  translated  in 
the  common  version,  eternal,  everlasting  and  forever, 
are  once  connected  with  Gehenna,  or  hell..  Not  an 
instance  can  be  found  where  we  read  of  an  everlast- 
ing Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus,  or  of  an  everlasting  Ge- 
henna, or  hell.  No  ;  though  we  often  hear  preachers, 
in  our  day,  speak  of  an  erernal  hell,  such  language 
never  was  used  by  any  inspired  writer.  The  phrase 
'  everlasting  fire  '  occurs  in  the  Bible,  and  this  has 
been  shown  before  to  be  the  same  as  '  everlasting 
punishment,'  and  the  '  fire  that  never  shall  be  quench- 
ed.' But  we  have  seen  that  none  of  these  expres- 
sions refer  to  a  place  in  a  future  state  called  Gehen- 
na, or  hell  ;  or  that  the  punishment  referred  to  is  end- 
less in  its  duration.  But  an  eternal  hell  is  often  heard 
of  from  the  pulpit,  and  perhaps  many  believe  it  to  be 
a  Scripture  exprossion. 

"  11th.  In  the  common  language  of  most  Chris- 
tians, you  find  heaven  as  the  place  of  blessedness  for 
the  righteous,  spoken  of  in  contrast  with  Gehenna  or 
hell,  the  place  of  endless  misery  for  the  wicked. 
Whatever  they  say  about  the  former,  they  have  a 
counterpart  in  speaking  of  the  latter.  But  when  we 
look  into  the  Bible,  we  do  not  find  such  a  counterpart. 


150  MEMOIR    OF 

I  shall  illustrate  what  I  mean  by  an  example  or  two. 
In  the  Bible  we  find  persons  expressing  their  hopes  of 
going  to  heaven  ;  but  do  we  ever  read  of  one  express- 
ing his  fears  of  going  to  Gehenna  or  helH  We  in- 
deed find  persons  speaking  familiarly  of  Sheol  and 
Hades,  and  expressing  both  their  fears  and  feelings  in 
regard  to  this  place  ;  but  do  we  ever  read  of  one  who 
expresses  his  fears  or  feelings  about  going  to  Gehen- 
na? No;  not  an  instance  of  this  is  found  in  Scrip- 
ture." 

Such  are  the  important  facts,  which  in  Mr. 
Balfour's  mind  formed  an  irresistible  mass  of 
evidence  to  show,  that  Gehenna  was  not  used  by- 
Christ,  or  his  servant  James,  (for  these  are  the 
only  persons  who  ever  used  the  word,  so  far  as 
we  can  learn  from  the  New  Testament,)  to  sig- 
nify a  place  of  future  punishment.  In  the  first 
place,  Mr.  Balfour  gave  a  class  of  facts  somewhat 
preliminary  in  their  nature ;  2d,  h©  examined 
every  text  in  which  the  word  Gehenna  occurs, 
and  showed,  beyond  all  dispute,  by  a  reference 
to  the  Old  Testament  sense  of  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  term,  and  by  a  careful  examination  of 
the  context  to  each  of  the  twelve  passages  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  the  conclusion  above 
named,  in  regard  to  the  Scriptural  use  of  the 
word,  is  undoubtedly  true;  and  3d,  he  corrobo- 
rated the  whole,  by  another  series  of  very  inter- 
esting and  very  important  facts.  But  here  he 
does  not  leave  the  matter. 


REV.    "WALTER     BALFOUR.  151 

He  considered  the  question  whether  Apocrypha 

ana  Tarr-ama 

the  Apocrypha  or  the  Targums  show  examined. 
that  Gehenna  was  ever  used  by  divine  authority 
to  signify  a  state  of  future  punishment.  But  be- 
hold, said  he,  the  word  Gehenna  does  not  occur 
in  the  Apocrypha  at  all !  As  to  the  Targums, 
he  fully  showed  that  whatever  be  the  sense,  in 
which  Gehenna  is  used  therein,  it  cannot  affect 
the  question  at  issue,  as  no  one  of  the  Targums 
was  written  early  enough  to  determine  in  what 
sense  the  word  Gehenna  was  used  in  the  time  of 
Christ.  Even  if  the  Targums,  or  either  of 
them,  had  been  in  existence  in  the  days  of  our 
Saviour,  whether  is  the  more  probable  that  he 
would  have  followed  the  prophets  in  their  sense 
of  Gehenna,  or  the  Jewish  Rabbins?  The  for- 
mer surely.  Did  he,  in  a  single  case,  intimate 
that  he  used  Gehenna  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  the  corresponding  term  bore  in  the 
Old  Testament  ?  But  all  questions  about  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  the  Targums  may  be  dis- 
missed, as  there  is  no  proof  that  either  of  them 
was  written  until  sometime  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  of  course  they  would  determine  noth- 
ing in  reference  to  the  sense  which  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  or  the  Jews  generally,  attached  to 
the  word  Gehenna  in  his  day.     The  preponder- 


152  MEMOIR   OF 

ance  of  evidence  goes  to  show  that  the  earliest 
Targums  were  not  written  until  two  or  three 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ.  That 
the  Jews  finally  came  to  use  the  word  Gehenna 
to  denote  a  place  of  future  punishment,  Mr.  Bal- 
four did  not  deny  ;  but  this  had  not  happened  in 
our  Lord's  day.  At  that  time  the  Jews  knew 
only  the  sense  attributed  to  the  term  Gehinnom 
in  the  Old  Testament.  They  gained  their  sub- 
sequent views  of  future  punishment  by  their 
association  with  the  heathen  around  them.  Such 
are  the  great  facts  brought  out  by  Mr.  Balfour  in 
regard  to  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word  Ge- 
henna. 

Objections  ^^  ^^^  conclusion  of  his  work,  Mr. 
answered.  gjjjfQyp  auswered  the  objections  which 
might  be  urged  against  his  belief  of  the  great 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  and  his  disbelief 
of  the  doctrine  of  punishment  after  death. ^ 


*Mr.  Balfour  subsequently  said,  *'  When  the  first  edi- 
tion of  the  Inquiry  was  published,  the  author's  attention 
was  entirely  directed  to  the  endless  duration  of  future 
punishment.  From  his  examinations,  then,  he  had  strong 
doubts  of  limited  future  punishment.  Subsequent  inves- 
tigations have  confirmed  and  increased  these  doubts,  nor 
has  he  seen  any  satisfactory  evidence  that  limited  any 
more  than  endless  punishment  is  taught  in  Scripture.  He 
thinks  he  has  candidly  considered  all  which  his  brethren 
have  urged  in  defence  of  a  limited  future  punishment ; 
but  the  arguments  used,  and  the  Scriptures  quoted,  only 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  153 

It  will  be  difficult  to  form  a  just  es- 


Efect  of 
tbe  i.nquiry. 


timate,  in  this  day,  of  the  efTect  which 
the  publication  of  this  Inquiry  had  upon  the  pub- 
lic mind.  There  were  thousands  who  believed 
the  whole  subject  had  been  exhausted  by  Mr. 
Balfour.  They  thought  the  whole  matter  had 
been  settled,  that  the  word  hell,  as  used  in  the 
Bible,  did  in  no  case  signify  a  place  or  state  of 
punishment  hereafter.  The  clergy, — the  preach- 
ers of  endless  misery, — were  evidently  thrown 
into  a  state  of  alarm,  as  to  the  way  in  which 
they  should  thereafter  defend  their  doctrine  of 
punishment  beyond  the  grave.  The  Unitarian 
divines  in  general  remained  ominously  silent. 
When  questioned  on  the  subject,  they  intimated 
that  learned  men  had  long  known  that  the  most 
which  Mr.  Balfour  had  said  was  true;  though 
they  did  not  seem  pleased  to  have  the  founda- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  entire- 
ly swept  away.  Those  Universalists  who  be- 
lieved in  future  punishment,  like  Messrs.  Turner, 
Dean,  Hudson  and  others,  did  not  fully  partici- 
pate in  the  general  joy  of  their  brethren  on  the 
publication  of  the  work.     The  so-called  Orlho- 

tend  to  confirm  him  in  the  opinion  that  the  doctrine  of 
limited  future  punishment  cannot  be  supported  from  the 
Bible."     See  Inquiry,  3d  edition,  p.  5,  Boston,  1832. 


154 


MEMOIR    JF 


dox,  or  Evangelical  ranks,  resembled  a  body  of 
men  who  had  been  prostrated  to  the  earth  by  the 
descent  of  lightning;  and  it  was  for  a  little  time 
a  matter  of  very  interesting  excitement,  whether 
they  would  attempt  again  to  make  a  defence  of 
their  favorite  doctrine,  so  essential  to  those  who 
propagate  their  religion  by  operating  on  the  fears 
of  the  ignorant;  and  if  they  should,  on  what 
new  ground  they  would  attempt  to  build  it  up. 

The  attempts  made  to  break  down  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Inquiry  will  be  treated  of  in  the 
next  chapter. 


CHAP.  VII. 

Controversy  to  which  the  Inquiry  gave  rise. 

The  Inquiry  had  been  but  a  little  time -^g^^,^^ 
before  the  public,  when  it  was  made  the  ^^'^^^-®- 
subject  of  animadversion.  At  first  the  attacks 
were  quite  indirect.  They  were  made  in  the 
pulpits  to  which  Mr.  Balfour  could  not  gain  ac- 
cess, and  in  public  papers  which  would  admit  of 
no  replies.  Of  course,  in  this  kind  of  warfare, 
he  could  not  defend  himself;  in  fact,  it  was  alto- 
gether a  kind  of  warfare  too  small,  indirect  and 
disingenuous,  to  satisfy  his  mind.^  He  loved 
honesty,  directness  and  simplicity. 

The    Inquiry  had    been  before  the  isr.  sawne 

.  attacks  thd 

public  SIX  or  eight  months,  when  some    inquiry. 
person  called  on  the  clergy,  through  the  public 


*In  1832  Mr.  Balfour  said, — "  It  would  be  tedious  and 
would  occupy  niore  room  than  we  can  spare,  to  notice  all 
the  attacks  which  hav<i  been  made  upon  it  [the  Inquiry] 
from  the  pulpit  and  in  the  public  journals,  since  its  first 
publication.  The  instances  which  have  come  within  the 
range  of  our  own  personal  knowledge  and  observation, 
have  not  been  few.' 


156  MEMOIR    OF 

journals,  either  to  refute  it,  or  to  confess  that 
they  were  deceiving"  the  people.  There  was,  in 
Boston,  at  this  time,  a  clergyman  by  the  name  of 
James  Sabine,  who  was,  for  aught  we  know,  a 
virtuous  man,  but  who  had  lost  caste  among  his 
Congregationalist  brethren.  He  had  had  a  war 
with  his  Society  in  Essex  street,  and  been  driven 
out  of  his  station  there.  It  was  probably  a  de- 
sire to  write  himself  back  again  into  public  favor, 
that  led  him  to  attack  the  Inquiry.  He  professed 
to  have  been  roused  by  the  call  which  had  been 
made  upon  the  clergy;  and  he  came  out,  there- 
fore, in  the  public  journals  and  said,  that  if  a 
suitable  meeting  house  could  be  obtained,  he 
would  refute  the  Inquiry.^  He  was  a  good 
speaker,  as  well  as  a  good  writer.  The  doubt 
for  some  time  was,  whether  he  could  obtain  a 
church  for  his  purpose.  At  length  the  Methodist 
Society  in  Brom field  street,  Boston,  gave  him 
liberty  to  deliver  his  course  of  lectures  in  their 
house.  •  Public  notice  was  accordingly  given ; 
but  before  the  day  arrived,  the  committee  became 
alarmed,  and  revoked  the  permission.  This  was 
principally  because  they  feared  they  should  be 
called  on  to  open  the  house  for  a  reply,  or  be- 

*See  Columbian  Centinel  of  Sept.  Oct.  and  Nov.,  1824. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  157 

cause  a  reply  might  be  made  upon  the  spot.  Mr. 
Sabine,  in  announcing  his  disappointment,  gave 
the  following  significant  hint :  "  This  diversion 
of  my  plan  has  been  occasioned  not  by  a  want  of 
religion,  as  it  is  professed  by  too  many,  but  for 
the  want  of  a  little  common  honesty. ^^  He  at- 
tributed the  change  to  some  influence  out  of  the 
committee.  When  all  others  failed  to  aid  Mr. 
S.,  the  Universalist  Society  in  Charlestown  came 
forward,  with  great  liberality,  and  threw  open 
their  doors ;  and  the  reply  to  Mr.  Balfour  was 
actually  delivered  in  their  meeting  house,  and 
in  no  other  place.  The  Universalists,  evidently, 
were  not  afraid  of  free  inquiry. 

One  great  trouble  with  Mr.  Sabine  -p^^^^^ 
from  the  beginning  was,  that  he  did  not  *^^  *"^''^' 
understand  the  subject  he  had  attempted  to  dis- 
cuss. He  did  not  come  up  manfully  to  the  task, 
and  meet  boldly  Mr.  Balfour's  positions  and  ar- 
guments ;  but  he  went  off  to  side  issues,  and 
put  in  a  great  amount  of  special  pleading.  The 
work  was  rather  an  attempt  to  support  future 
punishment  on  other  grounds,  than  to  refute  the 
arguments  of  the  Inquiry.  The  so-called  reply 
was  comprised  in  six  lectures,  of  which  the  titles 
were  as  follows : 


158  MEMOIR    OF 

1.  Examination  and  trial  of  the  ground  taken  in 
the  Inquiry. 

2.  Divine  government  constituted  upon  the  princi- 
ple of  Future  Retribution. 

3.  Retiibution  threatened  to  the  wicked,  a  motive 
to  Virtue. 

4.  Rewards  and   punishments   in   a   future   state, 
proved  from  the  Direct  Testimony  of  Scripture. 

5.  Punishment  in  a  future  state  further  considered. 

6.  Mr.  Balfour's  system  opposed  to  Divine  Au- 
thority.* 

Did  not  meet  Now,  the  most  of  the  positions  taken 
of  Inquiry  by  Mr.  Sabine  might  be  true,  and  still 
the  real  grounds  of  the  Inquiry  remain  untouch- 
ed. Never  did  a  book  go  under  an  examination, 
and  come  out  so  completely  unmarred,  as  did  the 
Inquiry.  It  is  not  our  place  to  say  whether  Mr. 
Sabine  did  or  did  not  sustain  his  six  positions ; 
but  even  allowing  that  he  sustained  them  all, 
excepting  the  last,  he  might  have  done  so  with- 
out affecting  at  all  the  ground  taken  in  the  In- 
quiry. But  even  under  his  sixth  and  last  posi- 
tion, Mr.  Sabine  did  not  attempt  to  prove  direct- 
ly that  the  Inquiry  was  opposed  to  divine  au- 
thority ;  but  went  off  to   side  issues,  and  sought 

*See  "  Universal  Salvation  indefensible  upon  Mr.  Bal- 
four's Ground  :  A  Reply  to  an  Inquiry,  &c.  ScC,  in  a 
Series  of  Lectures,  delivered  in  the  L'niversalist  Cliurch, 
Churlestown.  By  James  Sabine,  pastor  of  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  city  of  Boston.  Boston, 
1825."     8vo,  p.  132. 


Dr.  Thompson  on 
Mr.  Sabine's  eS'ort 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  159 

to  make  out  that  point  by  appealing-  to  other 
things.  He  did  as  little  to  overthrow  Mr.  Bal- 
four's book,  as  the  perching  of  a  hawk  upon  the 
apex  of  Bunker  Hill  Monument  would  do  to  un- 
settle the  base. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  Sabine's 
last  lecture,  Dr.  A.  R.  Thompson, 
a  citizen  of  Charlestown,  of  much  distinction, 
then  a  member  of  the  Universalist  Society,  as- 
cended the  pulpit,  and  delivered  an  address  to 
the  very  crowded  auditory.  The  following  ex- 
tracts will  show  the  character  of  Mr.  Sabine's 
Lectures,  as  viewed  by  those  who  listened  to 
them  : 

"  My  Friends, — The  Rev.  Mr.  Sabine  having  now 
closed  his  lectures,  I  request  the  privilege  of  making 
a  few  observations  to  you  on  the  subject  of  his  labors. 
The  reverend  gendeman,  of  his  own  free  will,  offered 
his  services  in  the  public  papers,  to  exanriine  and  re- 
fate  Mr.  Baltour"s  book,  provided  he  might  be  allow- 
ed the  use  of  a  pulpit.  This  religious  Society,  in  the 
genuine  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  unanimously  offered  him 
their  pulpit;  and  you,  my  friends,  have  patiently  and 
candidly  attended  the  discussion.  Some  «f  you  have 
read  Mr.  Balfour's  book,  but  many  have  attended  these 
lectures  who  have  not  read  the  book.  Those  of  you 
•who  have  read  the  book  will  bear  me  witness  that 
those  who  have  not,  cannot  possibly  form  a  correct 
idea  of  it  from  Mr.  Sabine's  lectures.  In  justice, 
therefore,  to  the  cause  of  truth,  to  the  autlior  of  the 
book,  and  to  those  who  have  not  read  it,  I  feel  con- 
strained to  state  exphcidy,  but  briefly,  what  the  pur- 


160  MEMOIR   OF 

pose  and  scope  of  this  book  are.     The  object  of  Mr. 
Balfour's  book,  then,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is 
TO  SHOW  THxVT  HELL  WAS  NOT  A  PLACE 
OF    ENDLESS    MISERY,    AS     HAS     BEEN 
GENERALLY  AND  LONG  BELIEVED.     This 
the  author  shows  incontroverlibly,  by  a  consideration 
of  all  the  texts  where  the  words  rendered  hell  in  our 
common  version  occur.     He  also  spent  two  sections 
of  the  book,  in  stating  a  number  of  facts,  that  the  in- 
spired writers  did  not  consider  hell  as  a  place  of  end- 
less misery  ;    nor  of  any  misory  in  a  future  state,  as 
has  been  supposed, — that  no  prophet  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament,  nor  yet  our  Saviour,  nor  his  apostles  in  the 
New  Testament,  ever  used  the  woid  hell  to  express  a 
state  of  punishment  in  the  future  world.     He  also 
traced  the  doctrine  of  hell,  as  a  place  of  endless  mis- 
ery, to  heathenism  as  its  origin — and  add\iced  some 
quotations  from  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  hell  tor- 
ments to  prove  it,  &c.     What,  then,  has  Mr.  Sabine 
done  in  refuting  these  things  I     Did  he  take  up  the 
texts  to  show  that  the  author  of  the  book  had  wrested 
these  texts  ?   had  perverted  them?     Has  he  taken  up 
any  of  tlie  facts  and  shown  them  to  be  false?    Or  has 
he  ever  told  his  audience  that  he  believes  hell  to  be  a 
place  of  endless  misery  ?     His  work  was   to  answer 
the  book,  not  to  make  it ;    but  has  he  not,  in  quoting 
it,  altered  it,  and  found  constant  fault  with  the  author, 
because  he  did  not  write  the  book  to  suit  him?     He 
quoted  but  little  of  the   book ;   (and  two   whole  sec- 
tions, which  contain  the  great  body  of  material  facts, 
he  has  not  quoted  at  all,  nor  even   alluded  to,)  and 
when  he  made  quotations,  he  never,  until  the  last  lec- 
ture, in  a  single  sentence,  referred  his  hearers  to  the 
pacre,  that  they  might  read  and  judge  for  themselves. 

'*  Having  said  thus  much-  about  Mr.  Sabine's  at- 
tempts against  Mr.  Balfour's  book,  we  must,  in  jus- 
tice to  our  own  feelings,  say  something  of  his  treat- 


KRV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  161 

ment  of  our  friend  the  author  Those  who  have  not 
read  Mr.  13. "s  book,  and  have  no  personal  knowledge 
of  him,  would  certainly  form  a  teirible  idea  of  the 
man,  from  the  portrait  of  him  in  Mr.  S.'s  lectures. 
Mr.  B.  is  there  charged  with  sophistry,  insincerity 
and  falsehoood,  with  denying  all  penalty  or  punish- 
ment for  sin,  with  abetting  and  upholding  all  infidel- 
ity, and  all  immorality,  with  first  perverting,  then  de- 
nying divine  revelation, — with  attempting  to  unhinge 
and  throw  down  the  whole  moial  system,  thus  to  de- 
throne the  moral  Ruler  of  the  universe.  Mr.  S.  al- 
low.^ Mr.  B.  the  best  abilities,  but  then  accuses  him  of 
the  worst  designs  against  the  best  interests  both  of 
God  and  man,  and  thus  adroitly  hangs  him  up  between 
heaven  and  earth,  as  fit  for  neither.  But,  my  friends, 
remember,  a  good  cause  is  never  made  better  by  per- 
sonal abuse,  and  a  bad  one  is  always  made  worse.  As 
the  best  possible  refutation  of  everything  which  can 
be  said  agiinst  Mr.  B.'s  book  is  to  read  it ;  so  the  best 
possible  refutation  of  every  thing  that  has  been  said 
against  the  man  is  to  know  him  as  we  do.'"* 

In   two   or   three   months  after  Mr.  _   ^  ,,     . 

irr.  Balfour  s 

Sabine's  lectures  had  been  delivered,  ^'''^^^• 
they  were  published.  Mr.  Balfour  came  out,  at 
once,  with  a  second  edition  of  his  Inquiry,  re- 
duced in  size,  and  brought  down  to  half  price ; 
and  as  soon  as  it  could  be  prepared,  he  published 
his  Reply  to   Mr.  Sabine. t     He  divided  it  into 

*See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  vi.,  p.  127.  Mr.  Sa- 
bine, shortly  after  these  Lectures  were  delivered,  left 
Boston,  al);uidoned  his  position  as  a  Presbyterian,  con- 
nected himself  with  the  Episcopal  church,  rind  moved 
into  Vernioti!;,  where  he  became  the  rector  of  a  parish. 

tMr.  B.ilfour  was  a  man  of  ready  utterance,  in  the 
11 


162  MEMOIR    OF 

two  parts.  1st.  A  Defence  of  the  Inqwiiy,  and 
2d,  Mr.  Sabine's  Proofs  of  a  Future  Retribution 
considered.  Mr.  Balfour,  like  many  other  intel- 
ligent men,  believed  that  Mr.  Sabine  had  done 
little  or  nothing  to  break  up  the  ground  of  the 
Inquiry.  For  instance,  see  the  following  para- 
graph : 

"  Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  book,  which  Mr» 
Sabiue  undertook  to  refute,  tlie  correctness  of  which 
we  are  confident  he  will  not  dispute.  'J'he  question 
comes  then  fairly  before  us,  'H  /lat  ought  Mr.  S.  to 
hare  done  to  answer  this  hook?  We  reply,  lie  ought 
to  have  proved  that  Hell  is  a  place  of  endless  misery  to 
the  icicktd.  But  has  he  done  this  ?  No,  he  has  not 
even  attenripled  it.  Tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it  not 
in  the  streets  of  Askelon,  for  the  daughters  of  the  un- 
circumsised  will  triumjjh,  that  he  does  uoi  pretend  xo 
advocate  that  hell  is  a  place  of  endless  misery.  As  to 
hell  being  a  place,  he  denies  it;  and  as  to  the  endless 
duratioii  (»f  its  punishnnent,  he  abandons  its  deiisnce. 
What  the  armies  of  the  living  God  will  think  and  say 
of  this,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  But  we  will  say,  that 
what  he  remarks  concerning  the  departure  of  certain 
men  in  this  region  from  Orthodox  principles,  comes 
with  a  had  grace  from  him,  when  he  strikes  the  Or- 
thodox flag  of  endless  misery  to  half  mast  in  his 
first  cnset  with  such  an  uncircumsised  Pliilistine." 
Pp.  11,  12. 


pulpit,  but  wag  not  what  the  world  would  term  an  orator. 
He  judged  ii  best,  therefore,  and  very  wisely  we  think, 
to  reply  to  Mr.  Sabine  from  the  press,  and  not  from  the 
pulpit.  See  "A  Reply  to  Mr.  Sabine's  Lectures  on  the 
Inquiry,  &c.,  in  two  parts.  1st.  A  Defence  of  the  In- 
quiry. 2d.  His  proofs  of  a  Future  Retiibution  consid- 
ered. By  Walter  Balfour."     Boston,  1825.    8vo,  p.  136. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  163 


In  the  second  part  of  his  book,   AHeged  proofs  of 

.  .  Future  Retribution 

which  IS  by  far  the  greater  part  of      ccnsidered. 
it,  Mr.  Balfour  considers  at  length  all  Mr.  Sa- 
bine's alleged   proofs   of  the   doctrine  of  future 
retribution.     Mr.  B.'s  object  in  the  "Inquiry" 
was  to  show  that  neither  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus 
or  Gehenna  denoted   a  place  of  endless  misery. 
It  came  out,  two  or  three  times  in  the  course  of 
the  work,  that  the  author  saw  no  proof  of  a  fu- 
ture punishment  at  all;  but  this  was  not  an  in- 
tegral part  of  his  system  ;  the  system  was  com- 
plete,  in  its  original  design,  without  that  incep- 
tion.    But  Mr.  Sabine   showed   a  very  strong, 
and  in  fact  an  uncontrollable  desire  to  run  off  to 
side  issues.     Had   he  succeeded  in  proving  the 
doctrine  of  endless  misery,  he  would  have  settled 
the  whole  question  as  to   punishment  hereafter; 
but  even  if  he  had  proved  the  doctrine  of  limit- 
ed  future  punishment,   he  would  still  have  left 
the   main  question   untouched.     He  might  well 
therefore  have  given  his  _  w^hole  attention  to  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment.     But  as  he  did 
not  see  fit,  for  certain  reasons,  to  do  so,  Mr.  Bal- 
four saw  fit  to  follow  him  whithersoever  he  led  ; 
and  hence  he  entitled  the  second  part  of  his  re- 
ply, "  Mr.  Sabine's  proofs  of  a  Future  Retribu- 
tion considered."     And  faithfully  did  he  consid- 
11=^ 


164  MEBIOIR    OF 

er  them.  He  did  not  leave  one  stone  upon  anoth- 
er, that  was  not  thrown  down.  At  the  close,  he 
proposed  to  Mr.  Sabine  a  further  discussion  of 
the  subject,  laying  down  the  principles  on  which 
he  thought  it  should  be  conducted;  but  Mr.  Sa- 
bine made  no  further  efforts, 
otter  labors  Soou  after  the  publication  of  the 
ofMrBauour.,q^q^j^y^„  ^^^   Balfour  scnt  several 

very  important  articles  to  the  "  Universalist 
Magazine"  for  publication.  They  consisted  of 
facts  which  had  been  gathered  during  the  prepa- 
ration of  the  "  Inquiry,"  and  which  did  not  come 
within  the  design  of  it.  The  first  was  a  very 
luminous  exposition  of  2  Thess.  i :  9 — "  Who 
shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the 
glory  of  his  power.".  He  took  the  same  view  of 
the  text  which  had  been  taken  by  Mr.  Ballou, 
and  other  Universalists ;  but  he  went  into  the 
subject  at  length,  and  with  such  freshness  of  il- 
lustration that  the  article  was  regarded  as  one  of 
the  best  essays  that  had  ever  been  produced  upon 
the  subject.^  He  also  came  out  with  a  similar 
essay,  on  Acts  xvii :  80  31 — "And  the  times  of 
this  io-norance   God  winked  at ;  but  now  com- 


*See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  v.,  pp.  157, 161,  165, 
169. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  165 

mandeth  all  men  every  where  to  repent :  Because 
he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man 
whom  he  hath  ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath  given 
assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead."^  This  essay  was  of  equal 
value  with  the  other.  It  is  a  somewhat  singular 
fact,  that  Mr.  Balfour  had  never  studied  the 
writings  of  Universalists.  He  began  his  in- 
quiries de  novo,  taking  no  hints  from  any  Unir 
versalist  authors  or  preachers.  He  diligently 
compared  Scripture  with  Scripture  ;  and  it  was 
by  this  process  that  he  was  brought,  in  almost  all 
the  important  cases,  to  the  same  results  to  which 
Mr.  Ballou,  and  others,  had  been  brought  before 
him.  There  was,  indeed,  a  freshness  of  illus- 
tration, and  Mr,  Balfour  worked  out  many  fine 
criticisms  that  tended  to  confirm  what  had  been 
before  said.  He  brought  forward  also  the  testi- 
monies of  learned  men  to  sustain  the  expositions 
he  had  given.  These  things  were  new  ;  but  the 
expositions  of  themselves,  (and  this  remark  will 
apply  also  to  the  "  Inquiry,")  were  not  new. 
In  the  summer  of  1S23,  he  had  com-   ei?  arndea 

on  the  phrase 

raenced  the  publication  of  a  series  of  spi'itof  God. 


*See  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  v.,  pp.  183,  190,  196, 
198,  206. 


166  MEMOIR    OF 

articles,  in  the  "  Evangelical  Repertory,"  =^  on 
the  phrase  "  Spirit  of  God."  As  this  publica- 
tion continued  but  for  a  short  time,  he  made  the 
offer  in  September,  1S24,  to  the  editors  of  the 
Universalist  Magazine  to  furnish  the  articles  for 
that  paper.  They  were  cheerfully  accepted  ; 
and  those  which  had  appeared  in  the  "  Reperto- 
ry "  were  republished,  so  that  the  whole  series 
appeared  in  the  "Magazine."  In  these  articles 
Mr.  Balfour  showed  very  plainly  that  he  was  a 
Unitarian.  His  object  was  to  ascertain,  ^'lohat 
say  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  " 
That  the  Inquiry  might  be  complete,  he  collected 
and  examined  every  passage  in  which  the  He- 
brew word  Ruh  and  the  Greek  word  pneuma  oc- 
cur, in  whatever  way  translated  in  the  common 
version.  They  were  classed  according  to  the 
best  of  his  judgment,  and  the  work  was  one  of 
great  labor.  In  fact  we  know  of  no  work  in  our 
language  which  contains  so  thorough  and  valu- 
able a  treatise  on  this  subject! 


*The  "  ETangelical  Repertory"  was  conducted  by- 
Rev  Edward  Turner,  and  was  published  in  Charlestown 
from  July  1823  to  July  1824,  wlien  it  ceased.  The  arti- 
cles on  the  "  Spirit  of  God  "  were  signed  "  Mikros,  '  pp. 
44,  39,  68. 

tSee  Universalist  Magazine,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  43,  49,  65, 
73,  81,  101,  113,  146,  157,  202.     vii  ,  48,  53,  57. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  167 

In  August,  1825,  Mr.  Balfour  ad-  3,,,,,,,^ 
dressed  a  letter  to  Rev.  Lyman  Beech- °''' ^'^''^^'"' 
er,  then  of  Litchfield,  Conn.,  and  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  Orthodox  divines  of  New  Eng- 
land. The  doctor,  in  some  one  of  his  publica- 
cations,  had  said — 

"  When  natural  philosophers  differ  in  theory,  and 
facts  are  adduced  by  one,  in  confirmation  of  his  opin- 
ions, an  obligation  is  supposed  to  be  laid  on  the  other 
to  account  for  these  facts  in  accordance  with  his  theo- 
ry;  and  the  philosopher  who  makes  no  reply  to  mat- 
ters of  fact,  and  who  makes  no  attempt  to  account  for 
thern  upon  his  own  system,  is  supprjsed  to  be  van- 
quished, and  to  be  conscious  that  he  is  vanquished. 
The  rule  is  certainly  fair  in  natural  science,  and  why 
it  should  not  be  applied  to  moral  subjects  is  more  than 
I  can  perceive.  It  is  a  hopeless  case  to  adduce  facts 
in  evidence,  if  all  an  opponent  has  to  do  is  to  pass 
them  over  in  silence,  or  to  make  a  diversion  to  draw 
away  the  attention  of  the  unwary."* 

So  had  Dr.  Beecher  said,  in  his  controversy 
with  rhe  Unitarians.  Mr.  Balfour's  eye  caught 
the  passage.  He  had  adduced  facts  in  confirma- 
tion of  his  opinions  as  to  the  Scriptural  use  of 
the  words  Skeol,  Hades,  Tartarus  and  Gehenna. 
In  this  way  he  had  laid  his  opponents,  according 
to  Dr.  Beecher's  own  confession,  under  an  obli- 
i^ation    to   account  for  those  facts,  in  accordance 


^See  the  "  Christian  Spectator  "  of  June,  1825,  p  303. 


168  MEMOIR    OF 

with  their  use  of  those  words.  And  if  they 
made  no  reply  to  those  matters  of  fact  which 
Mr.  Balfour  had  adduced,  the  latter  held  that 
they  were  vanquished,  and  that  they  kneiu  they 
were  vanquished.  He  put  home  the  Dr.'s  argu- 
ment to  him  in  his  own  words,  as  follows : 

"  For  eighteen  months  my  book  has  been  before  the 
public.  Your  decision  in  my  case  is,  that  for  this 
leno-th  of  time,  an  obligation  has  been  laid  on  the 
whole  Orthodox  body  to  account  for  the  lads  I  have 
stated  in  accordance  with  their  theory  of  hell  tor- 
ments. But  have  they  discharged  this  obligation? 
Mr.  Sabine  professed  to  answer  my  book,  but  he  no 
more  attempts  to  account  for  the  facts  than  he  does 
for  the  spots  in  the  sun  For  the  same  length  of  time 
the  obligation  has  rested  on  you,  but  in  violation  of 
your  own  rule  with  the  Unitarians,  you  have  not  at- 
tempted to  account  for  these  facts.  Am  I  to  conclude 
that  you  are  vanquished,  from  your  silence  about  them? 
or,  am  I  to  conclude  that  you  have  one  rule  for  Uni- 
tarians and  another  for  yourself?  Do  you  claim  the 
exclusive  right  to  lay  heavy  bordens  on  other  men's 
shoulders  to  account  for  facts  which  militate  against 
their  system,  yet  relieve  yourself  from  all  obligation 
to  account  for  iacis  which  sap  the  foundation  of  your 
own?  Must  you  be  permitted  to  judge  others,  yet  not 
suffer  yourself  to  be  judged  ?  and  measure  to  them  by 
a  rule  you  will  not  admit  just  in  measuring  to  you 
again?  Say,  if  we  must  allow  you  the  privilege  to 
expose  the  mole  in  your  brother's  eye,  yet  no  one 
Bfiust  say  a  word  to  you  about  the  beam  that  is  in  your 
own?  You  have  too  much  sense  to  think  that  such  a 
course  is  either  like  a  philosopher  or  a  divine,  or  that 
men  of  ordinary  sense  will  submit  to  it.  Abandon, 
then,  your  rule  as  false,  and  retract  your  statements 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  169 

in  the  above  quotation,  or  renounce  all  pretensions  to 
philosopher  or  divine,  yea  to  common  consistency."  * 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  Dr.  Beech- 
er  never  made  any  reply  to  this  ep  bi^e,  nor  any 
direct  and  acknowledged  reference  to  Mr.  Bal- 
four's Inquiry, 

Mr.  Balfour  continued  his  efforts  jp-^n^.  03  20. 
to  illustrate  those  passages  of  Scrip- *^^  ^  ^°'^"  ""■ '°' 
ture  which  had  been  supposed  to  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  misery.  In  the  month  of  No- 
vember, 1825,  he  sent  to  the  editors  of  the 
"  Magazine "  a  full  illustration  of  the  phrase 
"  day  of  judgment,"  containing  many  very  valu- 
able criticisms,  confirming  the  views  which  Uni- 
versalists  had  been  in  the  habit  of  taking  of 
those  passages  in  which  that  phrase  occurs.! 
Immediately  after  this,  at  the  call  of  an  "  In- 
quirer," he  furnished  vab^able  illustrations  of  the 
meaning  of  John  v:  28,29 — "Marvel  not  at 
this,  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that 
are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall 
come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done 
evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  I     In 


*TJniversalist  Magazine — vol.  vii :  p.  31, 

tThe  same  work — vii  :  p.  86. 

tThe  same  work — vii :  pp.  103,  105. 


170 


MEMOIR    OF 


this,  as  in  the  other  cases,  he  bad  embraced 
the  opinions  of  Universalists  without  reading 
any  of  their  writings,  being  led  thereunto  by 
comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture.  And, 
not  weary  in  well  doing,  he  prepared  a  very 
full  and  satisfactory  exposition  of  2  Cor.,  v: 
10 — "For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive 
the  tilings  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  ?Y  ^e  good  or  bad."^  By 
these  efforts  j\Ir.  Balfour  rendered  very  impor- 
tant services  to  the  cause  of  truth. 

Tbe  second  ^^  Jutto,  1S26,  Came  out  the  work 
Inquiry,  ^yj^j^,]^  ]^^g  gy^j.  slnce  been  denomina- 
ted Balfour's  Second  Inquiry.  It  was  called 
"  An  Inquiry  'into  the  Scriptural  Doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Devil  and  Satan  ;  and  into  the  ex- 
tent of  duration  expressed  by  the  terms  Olim^ 
Aion  and  Aio7iios.  rendered  everlasting,  forev- 
er, &c.,  in  the  Common  Version,  and  especially 
when  applied  to  punishment."!  The  intent  of 
the  title  page  at  the  last  section  was  to  as- 
sert   the   fact    that    the    inquiry   into    the    ex- 


*See  Universalist  Magazine — vol.  vii  :  pp.  Ill,  119, 
125,  131,  135. 

tThe  first  edition  was  published  in  Charlestown,  by 
Georjie  Davidson. 


KEY.    WALTER   BALFOUR.  171 

tent  of  duration  expressed  by  Olim,  and  the 
other  words,  had  respect  particularly  to  those 
cases  in  which  those  words  were  applied  to  pun- 
ishment. In  brief,  the  results  of  Mr.  B.'s  in- 
quiries in  these  fields  were,  that  the  words  devil 
and  Satan,  as  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  did 
n©t  signify  a  personal  devil,  according  to  the 
vulgar  superstitions  upon  the  subject;  but  were 
susceptible  of  interpretations  much  more  consis- 
tent with  common  sense  and  with  truth.  Mr. 
Balfour  had  never  read  the  celebrated  Treatise 
on  Atonement  by  Eev.  Hosea  Ballou ;  but  he  had 
explained  the  temptation  in  the  garden  of  Eden, 
and  that  of  our  Saviour  in  the  same  way  which 
Mr.  Ballou  had  pursued,^  and  taken  the  same 
ground  generally  in  the  book,  in  both  its  parts. 
The  plan  of  the  work  was  this :  It  was  di- 
vided into  two  parts.     Mr.  Balfour  said, — 

"  In  the  first  of  these  Inquiries,  the  chief  ohject  of 
the  author  has  heen  to  ascertain  if  SATAN  or  the 
DEVIL  be  a  Fallen  Angel  or  a  real  Being?  If  not, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers,  in  all  the 
various  texts  where  these  words  occur?  The  fullow- 
in:,'-  is  a  brief  statennent  of  its  contents  : 

Sec.  1,  The  comnnon  opinions  entertained  of  the 
Devil  and  Satan,  briefly  stated. 


*For  an   evidence   of   Mr.  Ballou 's   happiness  on  this 
account,  see  L'niversalist  Magazine,  vol.  viii.,  p.  10. 


172 


MEMOIR    OF 


Sec.  2.  Remarks  on  Genesis  iii  ,  showing  that  the 
serpent  which  deceived  Eve  was  not  a  fallen  angel. 

Sec.  3.  All  the  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  where 
the  original  word  Satan  occurs,  considered. 

Sec.  4.  The  opinion  that  the  Devil  or  Satan  is  a 
real  Being,  with  other  connected  opinions,  shown  to 
have  their  origin  in  heathenism. 

Sec.  5.  All  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
where  the  term  Satan  occurs,  considered. 

Sec.  6.  All  the  passages  where  the  original  term 
diaboJos,  or  devil  is  used,  cor.sidered. 

Sec.  7.  All  the  passages  considered  in  which  the 
terms  Devil  or  Satan  are  both  used  by  the  sacred  wri- 
ters synonimously. 

Sec  8.  All  the  texts  considered,  where  the  Devil 
is  supposed  to  be  called  the  evil  one,  the  tempter,  the 
great  dragon,  the  serpent,  and  old  serpent,  the  prince 
of  this  world,  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  and 
the  god  of  this  world. 

Sec.  9,  Facts  stated,  showing  that  the  Devil  is  not 
a  fallen  Angel,  or  real  Being. 

Sec.  10.  Objections  considered. 

Sec.  11.  Concluding  remarks,  pointing  out  the  evils 
which  have  arisen  from  the  common  opinions  enter- 
tained of  the  Devil  and  Satan." 

Concerning  the  second  part,  the  author  also 
said, — 

"  The  principal  object  of  the  author  in  the  second 
Inquiry  has  been,  to  notice  in  what  way  the  sacred 
writers  use  the  terms  OLIM,  AION,  and  AIONIOS, 
and  to  examine  particularly  all  the  texts  where  any  of 
them  apply  these  terms  to  punishment. 

Sec.  1.  All  the  texts  noticed  where  ohm  occurs  in 
the  Old  Testament,  but  is  rendered  by  words  which 
do  not  express  or  imply  eternal  duration. 

Sec.  2.-  All  the  passages  noticed  where  olim  is  used, 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  173 

and  rendered  by  words  which  convey  the  idea  of  end- 
less duration. 

Sec.  3.  All  iho  texts  where  olim  occurs,  is  ren- 
dered by  words  which  convey  the  idea  of  endless 
duration,  and  applied  to  punishment,  particularly  con- 
sidered. 

Sec.  4.  General  remarks  on  aion  and  aionios,  as 
used  in  the  New  Testament. 

Sec.  5.  All  the  places  noticed  where  aion  and 
aionios  are  rendered  ages,  course,  never,  forever,  ev- 
ermore, eternal,  everlasting,  but  which  have  no  rela- 
tion to  punishment. 

Sec.  6.  All  the  places  where  aion  and  aionios  are 
rendered  world,  considered. 

Sec.  7.  All  the  places  where  aion  and  aionios  is 
used  to  express  the  duration  of  punishment,  particu- 
larly considered,  in  whatever  way  rendered  in  the 
common  version. 

Sec.  8.  Concluding  remarks  on  olim,  aion,  and 
aionios,  throughout  the  Bible,  whether  applied  to  God, 
to  life,  or  punishment." 

In  the  spring  of  1827  came  out^^^,^^.^^^^^^^^ 
a  work  written  by  Rev.  Charles  ^°^-"°- 
Hudson,  then  of  Westminster,  Mass.,  addressed 
to  the  Kev.  Hosea  Ballon,  the  design  of  which 
was  to  support  the  doctrine  of  a  future  limited 
punishment.  It  was  entitled  "  A  Series  of  Let- 
ters addressed  to  Rev.  Hosea  Ballou,  of  Boston, 
being  a  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Future 
Retribution,  against  the  principal  arguments  used 
by  him,  JMr.  Balfour  and  others."  Mr.  Hudson 
sought  to  overthrow  the  religious  system  of  Rev. 


174  MEMOIR    OF 

Mr.  Ballou.  There  is  much  room  for  doubt, 
whether  Mr.  Hudson  gave  a  proper  view  of  Mr. 
Ballou's  opinions.  Be  this  as  it  may,  he  pro- 
fessed to  examine  his  arguments  and  refute 
them  ;  and  he  aimed  to  establish  the  doctrine  of 
future  retribution,  by  analogy,  by  the  alleged  in- 
equalities of  providence  in  the  present  world, 
and  by  various  testimonies  from  the  Scriptures. 
The  work  never  had  a  wide  circulation ;  and  it 
was  made  more  eminent  by  Mr.  Balfour's  reply 
to  it,  and  the  controversy  that  ensued,  than  by 
any  other  circumstance.^ 

Balfour's  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  appcarattce  of  Mr. 
j:.ssay8.  jiy^jgo^'s  work,  feeliog  as  Mr.  Balfour 
did,  it  was  to  have  been  expected  that  he  would 
reply  to  it.  His  name  was  used  in  the  title 
page ;  and  the  work  was  professedly  an  attempt- 
ed confutation  of  some  of  the  arguments  which 
he  had  published.  He  resolved,  therefore,  to 
bring  out  the  results  of  his  inquiries  into  the 
three  following  general  subjects,  viz.,  of  the  In- 
termediate State,  the  Resurrection  from  the 
Dead,  and  the  Greek  terms  rendered  judge,  con- 
demn, damnation,    &c.     The   latter  part  of  the 


*The  work  was  printed  by  David  Watson,  Woodstock, 
Vt.,  1827.     12mo,  pp.  312. 


EEV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  175 

•vVork  consisted  of  "  remarks  on  IMr.  Hudson's 
Letters,  addressed  to  Mr.  Hosea  Ballon,  and  oth- 
ers, in  vindication  of  a  future  retribution."'  The 
plan  of  the  work  is  thus  described: 

Essay  I. 
On  the  Intermediate  State  of  the  Dead. 

Sec.  1.  The  Scriptures  examined  respecting  the 
state  of  man's  Body,  Soul,  and  Spirit,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection. 

Sec.  2.  On  Ghosts,  and  their  intercourse  with  this 
world  after  death. 

Sec.  3  On  the  various  opinions  which  have  been 
entertained  respecting  the  nature  of  man's  sou]  ;  its 
immortality  ;  its  condition  after  death  ;  whence  such 
opiiiions  originated  ;  and  how  they  came  to  be  incor- 
porated with  the  Christian  religion. 

Sec.  4.  Facts  stated,  showing  that  the  common 
opinions  respecting  man's  soul,  and  its  condition  after 
death,  catmot  be  true. 

Sec.  5.  Objections  considered. 

Essay  II. 
On  the  Resurrection  from  the  Dead. 

Sec.  1.  On  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  Dead. 

Sec.  2.  On  the  Resurrection  of  ]Man  from  the 
Dead. 

Sec.  3.  Remarks  addressed  to  Christians,  Jews, 
and  Deists. 

Essay  III. 

On  the  Greek  terms  krino,  krisis,  krvna,  &c.,  ren- 
dered judge,  judgment,  condemned,  condemnation, 
damned,  damnation,  &c.,  in  the  New  Testament. 

Concluditig  remarks,  on  Mr.  Hudson's  Letters,  in 
Defence  of  a  future  Retribution,  addressed  to  Messrs. 
Hosea  Ballon,  Balfour  and  others. 


176  MEMOIR    OF 

These  essays  had  been  commenced  for  the 
author's  personal  satisfaction,  without  any  view 
to  Mr.  Hudson's  book,  or  even  to  immediate 
publication.  But  as  Mr.  Balfour  deemed  them 
a  full  answer  to  it,  he  prepared  them  for  the 
press.  All  the  texts  quoted  by  Mr.  Hudson,  in 
proof  of  a  future  retribution,  are  particularly 
considered,  as  well  as  the  principle  of  analogy  on 
which  he  reasoned  concerning  the  future  state  ; 
and  the  assumed  ground  on  which  he  built  his 
whole  scheme  of  punishment  after  death,  was 
shown  to  be  without  foundation  in  the  Bible,  as 
Mr.  Balfour  fully  believed. 

Howt-neEss3Vs  ^tt     the     SubjCCtS    of    tho     kst     tWO 

were  received.  £^^^y^^  Utti versalists  generally  were 
agreed  with  Mr.  Balfour;  but  there  was  much 
difference  of  opinion  among  them,  as  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  first.  Those  who  agreed  with  him 
maintained  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  the 
inherent  immortality  of  the  human  soul;  and 
consequently  that  man's  hope  of  immortality 
rests  solely  on  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ; 
and  this  hope  of  a  resurrection  rests  solely  on 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Mr.  Bal- 
four held  that  there  was  no  intermediate  state 
between  death  and  the  resurrection.  Death,  in 
his  view,  was  a  sleep;    the  patriarchs,  it  is  said, 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  l77 

went  down  to  the  grave,  to  sleep  with  their  fa- 
thers. All  go  to  one  place;  all  are  of  the  dust, 
and  all  return  to  the  dust  again.  The  human 
race  are  unconscious  between  death  and  the 
resurrection.  It  must  be  confessed,  concerninsr 
this  work,  that  although  it  gave  satisfaction  to 
many,  it  did  not  meet  with  that  general  and  cor- 
dial greeting  from  Universalists  which  Mr.  Bal- 
four's former  works  had  received.  He  however 
fully  believed  it  to  be  founded  on  the  Scriptures; 
nor  did  his  opinions  on  these  points  ever  change. 
He  was  accustomed  to  say,  "  if  you  think  I  am 
wrong,  show  me  my  error.  Give  me  a  '  thus 
saith  the  Lord.'  I  bow  to  nothing  but  the 
word  of  God."  This  was  the  first  point  of  any 
importance,  in  which  Mr.  Balfour  had  differed 
from  Mr.  Ballou ;  but  not  the  slightest  aliena- 
tion was  produced  between  them,  by  the  publi- 
cation of  the  work. 

It  was  in  the  beginning  of  the  year   Hadson-a 
1829,  that  Mr.  Hudson^  came  out  with     ^sba>8. 


*At  the  time  of  which  we  speak,  Rev.  Charles  Hudson 
was  pastor  of  the  Universalist  ^Society  in  Westminster, 
Mass.,  where  Ite  resided  for  several  years.  He  was  seot 
from  tliis  towa  a  Represt^ntative  to  the  (ieneral  Court  of 
Massach\isetts,  and  afterwards  was  elected  to  the  Senate. 
Being  a  steady  political  partizan  on  the  prevailing  .side, 
he  was,  in  due  course  of  tiiue,  sent  from  the  Ditiirict  in 

12 


178 


MEMOIR    OF 


his  reply  to  the  Essays.  Mr.  Balfour  was  in* 
the  habit  of  expressing  his  opinions  without  very 
great  reserve  ;  and  Mr.  Hudson,  not  being  suf- 
ficiently careful,  indulged  in  a  style  of  tartness 
and  retaliation  which  made  this  controversy  be- 
tween two  Universalists  more  unpleasant  than  it 
otherwise  would  have  been.  Mr.  Hudson  pro- 
fessed to  treat  the  subject  in  the  following 
manner: 

1st.  He  examined  Mr.  Balfour's  pretensions  to  fair- 
ness, and  noticed  his  severity  and  his  mistakes.  2d. 
He  staled  and  examined  his  system  ;  3d,  he  examined 
his  rules  of  interpretation  ;  4th,  he  considered  the  sub- 
ject of  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  showed  the  evidence 
of  the  present  immortality  ot  the  soul,  and  of  an 
intermediate  state;  5th,  he  stated  the  question  ia 
debate  as  it  respected  future  punishment;  6th,  he  en- 
deavored to  prove  a  future  judgment  from  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  7th,  he  gave  alleged  proofs  of  a  future  retri- 
bution; and  lastly,  he  sought  to  answer  the  objections 
to  his  system.  It  must  be  confessed  that  L'niversal- 
isis  at  large  did  not  take  a  very  deep  interest  in  this 
controversy. 

That  we  may  not  break  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  history  of  the  contro- 
versy with  Mr.  Hudson,  we  introduce  in  this 
place    an    account  of  Mr.  Balfour's  Letters  to 


Balfour's  Letters 
to  Hudson. 


which  he  lived  as  a  Representative  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States.  He  subsequently  lost  his  election  : 
but  obtained  a  lucrative  appointment  under  the  general 
government,  which  he  holds  to  this  day. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  179 

him.  It  was  a  large  duodecimo  of  360  pages, 
and  was  called  Letters  on  the  Immortality  of  the 
Soul,  the  Intermediate  State  of  the  Dead,  and  a 
Future  Retribution,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Charles  Hud- 
son, Westminster,  Mass.'"^  Mr.  Balfour  felt 
not  that  he  commenced  this  controversy.  He 
felt  that  he  was  attacked  by  Mr.  Hudson,  in 
his  Letters  to  Rev.  Hosea  Ballou.  As  he  had 
most  fully  avowed,  on  the  publication  of  his  In- 
quiries and  Essays,  that  he  stood  ready  to  defend 
the  doctrines  laid  down  in  those  books,  and  as 
he  was  the  last  man  to  shrink  from  a  fair  and 
manly  controversy,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  reply  to 
Mr.  H.,  notwithstanding  the  latter  professed  to 
be  a  Universalist.  Another  fact  is  to  be  remem- 
bered :  In  Mr.  Balfour's  mind,  the  doctrine  of 
the  natural  immortality  of  the  human  soul,  and 
that  of  future  retribution,  stood  or  fell  together. 
Many  Universalists  differed  from  him  in  opin- 
ion, as  to  this  subject  of  immortality;  but  Ae 
most  devoutly  and  religiously  believed,  that  the 
only  hope  of  the  immortality  of  man  was  in  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  Before 
that  event  shall  take  place,  in  his  view,  man,  the 
whole  man,  from  the  time  of  death,  sleeps;  and 


♦Published  by  G    Davidson,  Charlestown,  1829 
12^ 


180  MEMOIR    OF 

is  capable   neither  of  suffering  or  of  joy.     He 

believed  that  the  resurrection  was   a  Christian 

doctrine ;  but  he  held  that  the  doctrine  of  the 

soul's  separate   existence   in   the   intermediate 

state,  was  a  heathen  doctrine,  as  was  also  the 

doctrine  of  future  retribution  for  the  sins  of  this 

life.     On   this  whole  subject  of  the  controversy 

with  Mr.  Hudson,  and  of  the  origin  of  the  two 

doctrines  named,  Mr.  Balfour  said, — 

"  My  first  eight  letters  are  a  reply  to  Mr.  Hudson's 
book  ;  and  he  will  admit  I  have  overlooked  nothing 
material  in  it,  or  slightly  passed  over  what  he  deems 
his  strongest  proof  texts  and  arguments.  1  have  Ibl- 
lowed  him  in  his  course  from  its  commencement  to  its 
conclusion.  Of  the  success  of  my  labors  the  reader 
must  judge.  I  am  soriy  to  say  he  pursued  a  different 
course  with  my  Essays.  To  the  five  additional  let- 
ters I  solicit  the  reader's  careful  attention  ;  particular- 
ly to  the  tenth  and  eleventh.  The  doctrines  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  and  a  future  retribution  are 
not  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  by  Mr.  Hudson's 
own  showing ;  and  in  these  two  letters  we  think  it 
proved  they  had  their  origin  in  heathenism.  He  con- 
lends  they  had  their  origin  in  revelations  now  lost, 
■without  affording  any  proof  that  they  ever  existed. 
On  the  contrary  we  think  it  is  shown  by  a  profusion  of 
evidence,  that  such  opinions  arose  from  the  vain  spec- 
ulations of  heathen  philosophers  ;  were  imbibed  by 
the  Jews  in  their  intercourse  with  them  ;  were  early 
introduced  into  the  Christian  church,  by  converts  from 
Judaism  and  heathenism  ;  and  have  been  transmitted 
to  us  as  a  part  of  Christianity  ever  since.  It  is  shown 
in  the  eleventh  letter,  that  Luther  held  the  opmions 
for  which  1  contend. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  181 

"  This  controversy  was  first  begun  by  Mr.  Hudscm. 
It  now  remains  with  him  whether  it  shall  here  end. 
I  never  wished  to  provoke  a  controversy  among  Uni- 
versalists,  and  I  have  no  desire  to  continue  it.  Should 
he  choose  to  reply,  or  any  one  else,  1  request  that 
proof  be  adduced  from  Scripture  that  the  soul  is  im- 
mortal, and  has  a  conscious  existence  in  a  disembodied 
state.  Until  this  is  settled,  it  is  useless  to  discuss — 
is  it  to  suffer  in  this  state  ?  Oi  what  is  to  be  the  na- 
ture or  duration  of  its  punishment ■?  To  the  Scrip- 
tures 1  appeal  to  decide  this  question,  and  trust  we 
shall  hear  no  more  about  lost  revelations  to  support  it. 
We  have  given  the  history  of  the  soul's  immortality 
and  its  punishment  after  death,  but  this  is  done  mere- 
ly to  show  that  Mr.  Hudson's  opinions  are  of  heathen 
origin.  Let  it  be  shown  frona  the  Bible  that  they 
are  not."* 

The  most  valuable  sections  of    nistoryoftbe 

Bir  1        T  TT       1  doctrine  of 

aliour  s    Letters   to    Hudson  are  ^^t^'"=p"'^ishiuent. 

those  which  embrace  the  history  given  therein  of 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  for  the  deeds 
of  this  life.  He  divides  this  subject  into  two 
parts,  first  tracing  the  history  from  the  ear- 
liest times  to  the  introduction  of  philosophy 
into  Rome  ;  and  second,  from  the  latter  pe- 
riod to  the  present  time.  This  account  is 
abridged  from  the  History  of  Philosophy  by  Dr. 
Wm.  Enfield;  and  will  be  very  valuable  to  ev- 
ery one,  who  cannot  obtain  the  work  itself; 
though   it  must  be   remembered,  that  Dr.  En- 


*Letter3  to  Hudson,  Introduction,  pp.  11, 12. 


182  MEMOIR    OF 

field's  work  is  an  abridgement  of  Brucker's  on 
the  same  subject."^  Mr.  Hudson  published  no 
other  volume,  and  thus  the  controversy  closed. 
Mr.  Hudson's  books,  and  Mr.  Balfour's  Essays 
and  Letters,  did  not  have  a  large  sale;  and  no 
second  edition  of  them  was  ever  called  for.  Not 
so  vvith  the  First  and  Second  Inquiries, — they 
each  passed  through  three  editions. 
President  Allen        In  the  summer  of  1828,  Presi- 

attacks 

Mr.  Baifoar-sworkg.  dent  AUeu,  of  Bowdolu  College, 
gave  a  lecture  to  the  students,  entitled,  "  Lec- 
ture on  the  Doctrine  of  Universal  Salvation,  de- 
livered in  the  chapel  of  Bowdoin  College,  by 
the  President."  Mr.  Balfour  felt  then  that  he 
was  attacked  in  high  places.  He  sought  early 
to  get  a  copy  of  the  lecture,  for  it  had  been  pre- 
viously announced  by  the  President  that  he  was 
about  to  review  Mr.  Balfour's  book,  and  a  friend 
living  in  the  vicinity  had  given  Mr.  B.  informa- 
tion of  the  fact.  He  supposed  it  would  be  a 
work  of  elaborate  criticism.  Judge,  then,  of 
his  surprise,  when  he  found  that  the  whole  was 
embraced  in  a  single  lecture  to  the  students,  and 
that  it  was   altogether  a  superficial  production. 


*Dr.  Enfield's  was  a  clear  and  able  performance.  He 
had  been  tutor  and  lecturer  in  the  dissenting  academy  at 
Warrington,  England. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR  183 

There  had  been  no  little  commotion  in  the  Or- 
thodox ranks,  from  the  time  of  the  publication 
of  the  First  Inquiry.  Travail  and  anguish  seiz- 
ed them  ;  but  when  the  effect  of  all  this  labor 
was  made  visible,  it  was  difficult  to  keep  out  of 
mind  the  proverb  concerning  the  progeny  of  the 
mountain.  President  Allen  sought  to  reply  to 
Mr.  Balfour,  without  naming  him,  as  if  he  dis- 
dained the  antagonist  with  whom  he  must  have 
felt  himself  insufficient  to  contend  ;  but  he  made 
such  allusions  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  whose 
books  he  was  reviewing,  for  he  sometimes  named 
the  works.  The  pamphlet  of  forty  pages  was 
not  thought  too  mean  to  be  noticed  by  Mr.  Bal- 
four, although  it  had  been  described  by  a  review- 
er as  made  up  of  hackneyed  and  jaded  assump- 
tions.^ 

The  Reply  of  Mr.  Balfour  came  ^Bauou^-s  Reply  ^ 
out  in  the  beginning  of  Novem-  "^  ^'^•^^^'^^^'^ ^^^^°* 
ber,  1S2S.  It  was  a  large  duodecimo  pamphlet 
of  upwards  of  seventy  pages,   and  appeared  in 

*AIr.  Balfour  =aid,  four  years  afterwards,  *♦  The  Dr.'s 
attempt  to  refute  the  '  Inquiry,'  was  deemed  so  weak, 
even  by  his  own  friends,  that  his  pamphlet  was  with- 
drawn from  the  bookstores  and  suppressed,  if  our  infor- 
mation is  correct.  It  is  certain  it  was  frequently  asked 
for  in  the  bookstores  of  Boston,  but  could  not  be  obtain- 
ed ;  and  very  few  persons  in  this  region  ever  procured  a 
copy  of  it."     Inquiry,  3d  edition,  p.  8. 


184  MEMOIR    OF 

the  form  of  a  letter  to  the  President.  It  was 
written  in  Mr.  Balfour's  pungent,  candid,  matter- 
of-fact  manner;  and  it  did  not  fail  to  carry  con- 
viction to  the  mind  of  every  honest  inquirer  af- 
ter truth  who  read  it.  It  was  thought  by  some 
that  Prof.  Stuart  instigated  Dr.  Allen  to  this  at- 
tack ;  but  of  this  we  never  saw  any  proof.  The 
Professor  still  remained  silent,  and  neglected  his 
half-made  promise"^  to  "  enter  the  lists." 
Another x^etter  ^^  December,  1828,  Mr.  Balfour 
toDr.Beecher.  attended  a  public  lecture  in  the  ves- 
try of  the  Society  in  Hanover  street,  of  which, 
the  elder  Dr.  Beecher  was  then  pastor,  and  heard 
a  lecture  from  him  on  the  parable  of  the  Rich 
Man  and  Lazarus.  This  lecture  was  unques-^ 
tionably  designed  to  counteract  the  influence  of 
the  First  Inquiry  among  the  Orthodox  them- 
selves. The  Dr  maintained  that  our  Lord,  in 
this  parable,  clearly  taught  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  and  that  Hades  was  a  place  of  future 
punishment.     He  also  took  the  ground  that  Ge- 


*Prof.  Stuart  had  intimated,  that  if  he  could  know  the 
name  and  object  of  his  aiitiigonist,  and  contend  on  s-on.e 
other  ground  than  that  of  a  newspiipef;  h«  Uiighl  be  in- 
duced to  enter  the  lists.  "  1  niust  know  the  nanie  and 
object  of  my  antagonist,  before  1  enter  the  litits:  and 
contend  on  some  other  ground  than  that  of  a  newt^paper  " 
See  his  letter  of  June  19ili,  1821,  published  in  "  Lniver- 
aalist  Magazine,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  1. 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  185 

henna  was  made  an  emblem,  by  the  sacred  wri- 
ters, of  future  punishment.  There  were  only- 
two  things  which  the  Dr.'s  sermon  lacked,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Balfour,  viz.,  argument  and  truth. 
The  latter  came  out  with  a  "  Letter  to  Rev.  Dr. 
Beecher,"^  to  which  the  Dr.,  with  profound  sa- 
gacity, never  condescended  to  pay  any  attention. 
During  the  time  that  Mr.  Balfour  ^^  Baifour 
was  engaged  in  preparing  these  works,  ^  ^p"^^*^^"- 
and,  in  fact,  ever  since  his  conversion  to  Univer- 
salism,  he  had  been  diligent  as  a  preacher.  Fre- 
quent calls  were  made  upon  him  from  various 
parts  of  New  England,  which  he  always  held 
himself  ready  to  meet,  so  far  as  it  was  in  his 
power  to  do  it.  He  was  not  a  popular  orator, 
but  a  ready  speaker,  whose  discourses  always 
abounded  with  sound  sense  and  scriptural  knowl- 
edge. These  labors  Mr.  Balfour  continued,  as 
calls  were  made  upon  him  for  many  years,  and 
until  he  was  obliged,  by  bodily  infirmities,  to  de- 
sist from  them.  We  may  name,  in  this  place,  a 
journey  made  by  him  to  the  State  of  Maine,  in 
the  summer  of  1S30.  He  passed  through 
Portsmouth,  N.  H,,  to  Portland,  thence  to  Nor- 
way, Buckfield,  Turner,  Augusta,  Bowdoinham, 
Brunswick,  Bath,  Wiscasset,  Waldoboro,  Union, 


*See  Trumpet,  vol.  i.,  pp.  105,  106. 


186  MEMOIR    OF 

Searsmont,  Montville,  Belfast,  Hallowell,  Gard- 
ner, preaching  in  all  these  places,  to  crowds  of 
hearers.  He  enjoyed  hinriself  highly  on  this 
journey,  and  his  labors  were  said  to  have  been 
the  cause  of  great  good."^ 

Stuart's  ^"  ^^®  ^^^^  0^  1830,  more  than  six 

E.eget.cai  Essays.  ygjjj.g  ^^^^^  ^^^  First' Inquiry  had 

been  published,  Prof.  Stuart  came  out  with  a 
book  designed  to  counteract  the  effect  of  Mr. 
Balfour's  publications.  At  this  time  there  had 
appeared  of  Mr.  Balfour's  works,  his  First  and 
Second  Inquiries,  Essays  and  Letters  to  Hudson, 
with  the  replies  to  Sabine  and  to  Allen.  The 
Professor's  work  was  entitled  "  Exegetical  Es- 
says on  several  words  relating  to  Future 
Punishment."t  It  was  unquestionably  designed 
to  break  down  the  influence  of  Mr.  Balfour's 
works,  especially  the  three  first  named  ;  but  the 
Professor  had  not  the  magnanimity  to  name 
either  the  works  or  their  author.  Whether  this 
was  consistent  with  candor  or  Christian  charity, 
we  shall  not  undertake  here  to  discuss.! 

The  "  Exegetical  Essays  "  were 

Exegetical  Essays    ^^^^^^      ^^      ^^iS      following      plan: 


*See  Trumpet,  vol.  iii.,  p.  33. 

tAndover,  Mass.,  1830.     12iiio,  pp.  156. 

tThe  Professor  evidently  felt  as  if  this  circunistance 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  187 

First,  the  Professor  treats  of  Aion  and  AionioSf 
which  had  been  so  fully  treated  by  Mr.  Balfour 
in  his  Second  Inquiry.  He  speaks,  as  he  says, 
1st,  of  the  importance  of  the  subject.  2d,  The 
Classical  us©  of  the  words  in  question.  3d, 
Their  sense  as  employed  in  the  New  Testament. 
4th  5th  and  6th,  Meaning  of  Aion.  7th.  In- 
stances of  Aion  in  respect  to  future  punishment, 
of  which  he  claims  there  are  five  instances  only, 
2  Peter  ii :  17.  Jude.  v:  13.  Eev.  xiv :  11. 
xix :  3.  XX  :  10.  8th,  General  Summary  of 
the  meaning  of  Aion.    He  comes  then  to  the  ad- 


needed  an  apology.  "That  I  have  not  referred,  in  the 
general  course  of  discussion  to  those  who  differ  from  me 
in  opinion  (one  instance  only  excepted)  they  must  not 
put  to  the  score  of  neglect  ;  for  nfiiher  have  I  referred 
to  those  with  whom  I  agree.  My  wish  is,  not  to  appear 
in  a  polemic  attitude,"  &c.  Prof  Stuart  had  openly  at- 
tacked Dr.  Channing,  and  the  Unitarians  generally  ;  and 
nine  years  before  the  publication  of  the  Exegetical  Es- 
says, he  had  almost  professed  a  willingness  to  "  enter  the 
lists  ■'  with  the  Inquirer,  if  he  could  know  his  real  name, 
and  contend  on  some  other  ground  than  that  of  a  news- 
paper. See  a  previous  note.  How  does  it  happen,  then, 
that  he  was  so  averse  to  assuming  "  a  polemic  attitude  " 
just  at  that  time .'  It  is  certain  that  on  other  occasions 
he  had  had  no  objections  to  assuniing  such  an  attitude. 
Not  six  months  before  the  ''Exegetical  Essays''  appear- 
ed, he  had  addressed  his  Letter  to  Dr  Channing  on  Re- 
ligions Liberty,  which  was  of  a  very  polemical  character; 
and  he  somewhat  blamed  Dr.  Channing  for  not  having 
noticed  the  works  which  had  been  addressed  to  him.  See 
work  last  mentioned,  p.  47. 


188 


MEMOIR   JF 


jective  Aionios.  10th,  First  class  of  meanings, 
llth,  Second  class  of  meanings.  12th,  Instances 
in  respect  to  future  punishment.  These  are 
Matt,  xviii:  8.  xxv :  41,  46.  Mark  iii :  29. 
1  Thess.  i :  9.  Heb.  vi .  2.  Jude.  6.  13th.  Gen- 
eral Summary  of  the  meanings  of  Aionios. 
14th.  Meaning  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
word  in  the  Old  Testament.  15th.  General 
Summary  in  regard  to  that  word.  16th.  Use  of 
Aion  and  Aionios  in  the  Septaagint.  17th. 
Bearing  of  the  testimony  on  the  subject  of 
future  punishment.  ISth.  Results.  19th.  Man- 
ner in  which  Aion  and  Aionios  have  been 
treated  by  some  critics  and  lexicographers. 

Having  used  up  half  the  bulk  of  his  work, 
on  Aion  and  Aionios,  he  comes  to  consider  the 
words  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus  and  Gehenna,  the 
subjects  embraced  in  the  First  Inquiry.  He  con- 
siders I.  Sheol.  1st.  Moral  meaning  of  the 
word.  2d.  Remarks  on  the  common  translation 
of  Sheol.  3d.  Manner  of  using  figurative  lan- 
guage in  respect  to  the  objects  of  a  future  world. 
4th.  Secondary  signification  of  Sheol.  5th. 
Popular  views  of  Sheol.  6th.  Remarks  thereon. 
7th.  General  conclusion.  II.  Hades.  1st.  Clas- 
sical sense  of  the  word.  2d.  Hades,  as  used  by 
the  sacred  writers.     3d.  Remarks  on  the  use  of 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  189 

Hades  in  the  Scriptures.  III.  Tartarus.  IV. 
Gehe7ina.  To  this  most  important  part  of  the 
subject  the  Professor  devotes  only  seven  out  of 
his  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  pages.  He  ac- 
knowledges that  primarily  Gehenna  signified  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  on  the  boundaries  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Both  parties  were  agreed,  that  it  is  used  in 
the  Scriptures  in  a  secondary  sense.  He  main- 
tained, but  without  sufficient  authority,  that  it 
referred  to  a  future  state  of  punishment.  With 
a  few  general  remarks,  he  closes  his  book. 

One  great  fault  of  the  "  Exeget-  j,^^,^,  ^,  ^^^  ^ 
ical  Essays  "  was,  that  the  Profes- ^"^^''"'="''^^^"^^' 
sor  spent  the  most  of  his  strength  on  subjects 
that  wrre  of  the  least  importance,  and  which  he 
acknowledged,  in  effect,  to  be  so.  The  great 
points  in  respect  to  the  words  and  phrases  he 
considered,  received  the  smallest  share  of  his 
attention.  Think  of  the  fact,  that  he  should 
have  given  so  small  a  section  to  the  word  Ge- 
henna !  which  should  have  been  the  main  point 
of  his  inquiries.  Another  great  insufficiency  of 
this  work  is  the  circumstance  that  he  paid  no  at- 
tention whatsoever  to  the  chapters  of  facts  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Balfour.  He  knew  that  those 
facts  were  regarded  by  Universalists  as  forming 
a  body  of  evidence  incontrovertible,  in  favor  of 


190  MEMOIR    OF 

their  understanding  of  the  Scriptural  use  of  the 
word  Gehenna.  Facts  are  difficult  things  to 
deal  with.  When  facts  are  adduced  in  support 
of  any  theory,  it  manifestly  devolves  on  those 
who  are  opposed  to  that  theory  to  account  for 
those  facts ;  and  if  they  do  not  account  for  them, 
if  they  pass  them  over  in  silence,  and  appear  as 
if  they  would  keep  them  out  of  sight,  we  say, 
with  the  elder  Dr.  Beecher,  *'  it  is  evident  such 
persons  are  vanquished,  and  that  they  are  sen- 
sible they  are  vanquished."=^ 

Eepiytothe  ^^^  ^  ^^'^  months  after  the  "  Ex- 

Exegeticai Essays,  ^^g^.^^j    Essays"   appeared,  camc 


*The  *'  Exegetical  Essays  ''  produced  little  effect.  In 
truth,  Prof.  Stuart  himself  seems  afterward  to  have  been 
doubtful  on  the  subject  of  endless  misery.  He  has  ex- 
pressed himself  at  times,  in  such  terms,  that  he  has  been 
accused,  by  some  of  his  Orthodox  brethren,  of  heresy. 
Tholuck  found  fault  as  to  the  views  of  the  Professor  on 
the  subject  of  original  sin.  See  the  periodical  edited  by 
Tholuch,  entitled  ''Literarischer  Anzeiger,"  of  April 
7,  1834.  He  accuses  the  Professor  of  using  the  same 
objections  against  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  which  had 
been  employed  by  the  Rationalists  of  Germany  A  pa- 
per in  our  own  country,  called  the  "Presbyterian," 
echoed  the  voice  of  Tholuch;  and  the  well  known  "  Pu- 
ritan'' (Nov.  4th,  1841,)  re-echoed  it.  Many  will  re- 
nie«)ber  the  painful  suspicions  that  were  excited  in  some 
Orthodox  minds,  by  the  Professor's  article  in  the  "  Bibli- 
otheca  Sacra"  for  February,  1843,  on  "Angelology,"  in 
which  he  said,  "  that  as  to  the  power  of  Satan  over  the 
wicked,  it  is  every  where  presented  in  the  Kew  Testa- 
ment as  something  which  will  wholly  cease  after  a  time.'' 


REV.     WALTER    BALFOUR.  191 

out  Mr.  Balfour's  reply.*  It  must  be  confessed  that 
in  following  up  the  Professor's  train  of  thought, 
Mr.  Balfour  had  not  a  difficult  labor  to  perform. 
The  Professor's  arguments,  or  rather  shows  of  ar- 
gument, were  replied  to  with  great  candor,  and 
with  great  vigor.  The  reply  was  embraced  in 
five  letters.     In  the  first  of  these,  Mr.  Balfour 

*It  was  entitled  "  Reply  to  Prof.  Stuart's  Exegetical 
Essays  on  several  words  relating  to  Future  Punishment." 
By  Walter  Balfour,  Charlestown,  Mass.  Boston,  printed 
for  the  author,  1831. 

The  Professor's  small  work,  entitled  *'  Hints  on  Proph- 
ecy," aimed  at  the  delusion  of  Millerism,  also  excited 
painful  sensations  among  some  of  the  Orthodox  party. 
He  maintained,  in  this  work,  that  by  far  the  larger  pro- 
portion of  mankind  will  be  saved.  "  That  the  final  pro- 
portion of  men  who  will  be  redeemed  must  be  greater, 
yea  much  greater  than  that  which  will  be  lost,  seems  to 
be  made  certain  by  the  ancient  promise,  that  'the  seed  of 
the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head,'  Gen.  iii :  15. 
But  how  can  this  promise  be  true,  if,  after  all,  Satan  shall 
destroy  the  larger  portion  of  the  human  race.'  "  Second 
Edition,  Andover,  1842,  p.  132.  In  the  same  work  the 
Professor  interpreted  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  treat  of  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  much  as  the 
Universalists  do,  and  this  was  another  cause  of  grief  to 
some  of  his  brethren.  The  "  New  York  Evangelist," 
that  organ  of  popular  Orthodoxy,  spoke  of  the  opinions 
of  Professors  Stuart  and  Bush,  on  this  point,  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms  :  "  The  tendency  of  these  views  is  to  de- 
stroy the  Scripture  evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  any  real 
end  of  the  world,  any  day  of  final,  general  judgment,  or 
general  resurreetion  of  the  body.  The  style  of  interpre- 
tation, we  assert,  tends  fearfully  to  Universalism. 
This  tendency  we  are  prepared  to  prove."     But  one  of 


T92  MEMOIR  OF 

considered  what  the  Professor  had  said  on  the 
words  Aion  and  Aionios.  He  separated  his  as- 
sertions from  his  arguments,  showing  that  the 
former  were  by  far  the  most  numerous.  He 
pointed  out  his  misapplications  of  Scripture ;  and 
showed,  too,  that  notwithstanding  his  boasted  re- 
gard for  the  Scriptures,  he  seemed  to  rely  much 
more  upon  the  testimony  of  Talmudic  and  Rab- 
binic writers,  tlian  upon  that  of  the  inspired 
servants  of  God.     In  fine,  it  must  be  said,  after 

the  most  remarkable  articles  ever  written  by  Prof.  Stu- 
art, was  published  in  the  "Biblical  Repository,"  A.  D. 
1840.  It  was  professedly  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of 
endless  misery ;  but,  like  Archbishop  Tillotson's  famous 
sermon  on  that  point,  it  had  a  decided  influence  to  weak- 
en the  faith  of  those  who  believed  it.  V\  e  make  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  : 

"Next  to  the  inquiry  whether  the  soul  is  immortal, 
stands  in  point  of  importance  and  interest  the  question, 
*  Whether  there  is  a  state  of  rewards  and  punishments 
beyond  the  grave,  and  whether  that  state  is  eternal?  ' 
A  more  fearful  question  cannot  be  raised  by  the  human 
mind,  than  by  asking  whether  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  in  a  future  world  is  to  be  regarded  as  endless  ? 

"No  reflecting  man  can  wonder,  that  so.many  among 
us  are  so  deeply  agitated  by  this  subject.  While'ihe  great 
majority  of  Christians  consider  the  inquiry  suggested  by 
this  last  question  as  answered,  yea  fully  answered,  by  the 
Scriptures,  yet  there  are  not  a  few  who  claim  to  be  consid- 
ered Christians,  whose  minds  are  filled  with  difficulty  in 
respect  to  the  subject  of  endless  njisery  in  a  future  woild." 

Speaking  of  those  who  believe  in  the  final  salvation  of 
all  men,  he  said, — 

"iNot  a  few  persons  in  our  community  secretly  belong 
to  this  class.     They  perceive  the  extravagant  and  obtru- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  193 

looking  carefully  over  the  Essays  and  the  Reply, 
that  the  Professor  left  the  controversy  concern- 
ing Aio/i  and  Aioiiios  just  where  he  found  it 
when  he  begun.  No  dependance  can  be  placed 
on  the  mere  force  of  these  words,  to  sustain  the 
doctrine  of  the  endless  duration  of  punishment. 
As  Isaac  Taylor  says,  "  The  unfixed  practice  of 
our  English  translators  in  rendering  the  Scrip- 
ture terms  of  duration,  has  thrown  a  disadvan- 
tage upon   certain   very  momentous  questions, 

sive  assumptions  of  those  who  deny  any  future  punish- 
ment; and  fearing  to  encourage  them  in  their  error,  they 
withhold  the  expression  of  their  own  doubts  and  difficul- 
ties, guarding,  at  the  same  titne,  from  expressing  and 
inculcating  any  positive  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment.  Thus  they  live  and  perhaps  die,  without 
ever  making  any  explicit  avowal  of  their  secret  belief,  or 
at  [east  of  their  secret  doubts.  And  among  these  are 
not  a  few  of  the  professed  preachers  of  the  gospel. 

'*  It  were  easy  to  prefer  accusations  in  this  case,  of 
insincerity  and  the  want  of  open  and  honest  dealing;  and 
this  is  soin -times  done.  To  such  accu-iations.  indeed, 
there  are  so;ne  who  would  be  justly  subjected .  Bull 
am  not  persuaded  that  all  doubters  of  this  class  are  to  be 
taxed  with  hypocrisy  and  double  dealing.  There  are 
minds  of  a  very  serious  cast,  and  prone  to  reasoning  and 
inquiry,  that  hive  in  some  way  come  into  such  a  state, 
that  doubt  on  the  subject  of  endless  punish  iient,  cannot, 
without  the  greatest  difficulty,  be  removeil  from  them. 

"  They  commence  their  doubts,  it  is  probable,  by  some 
a  7>riori  reasoning  on  this  subject.  '  God  is  good.  His 
tender  mercy  is  over  all  the  w^rks  of  his  hands.  He  has 
no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  a  sinner.  He  has  power  to 
prevent  it.     He  knew   before  he  created  man,  and  made 

13 


194  MEMOIR    OF 

and  has  made  many  affirmations  of  the  inspired 
writers  seem  vague,  which  probably  were  to 
themselves,  and  their  first  readers,  quite  definite  ; 
or  at  least  more  so  than  they  are  to  our  ears. 
The  confusion  hence  arising,  has  led  certain 
controvertists  to  found  an  argument  upon  the 
supposed  force  of  a  single  term  [Aionios)  to 
which  Scripture  usage  has  given  a  very  great 
latitude  of  meaning  ;  and  which  therefore  must, 
in  every  place,  receive  its  specific  value  from  the 

him  a  free  ajjent,  that  he  would  sin.  In  certain  prospect 
of  his  endless  misery,  therefore,  his  benevolence  would 
have  prevented  the  brinj^mg  of  him  into  existence.  No 
father  can  bear  to  see  his  own  children  miserable  w  ithout 
end,  not  even  when  they  have  been  ungrateful  and  re- 
bellious; and  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  loves  us  better 
than  anv  earthly  parent  does  or  can  love  his  children.' 

"  Besides,  our  sins  are  temporary  and  finite,  for  they 
are  committed  by  temporary  and  finite  beings;  and  in  a 
world  filled  with  enticements  both  from  without  and  front 
within  It  is  perfectly  easy  for  Omnipotence  to  limit, 
vea  to  prevent,  any  mischief  which  sin  can  do;  so  that 
the  endless-punishment  of  the  wicked  is  unnecessary,  in 
order  to  maintain  the  divine  government  and  keep  it  up- 
on a  solid  basis.  Above  all,  a  punishment  without  end, 
for  the  sins  of  a  few  days  or  hours,  is  a  proportion  of 
misery  incompatible  with  justice  as  well  as  mercy.  And 
how  can  this  be  any  longer  necessary,  when  Christ  has 
made  atonement  for  sin,  and  brought  in  everlasting  re- 
demption fiom  its  penalty  ? 

"  The  social  sympathies,  too,  of  some  men  are  often 
deeply  concerned  with  the  formation  of  their  religious 
opinions.  They  have  lost  a  near  and  dear  friend  and 
relative  by  death,  one  who  never  made  any  profession  of 


RRV'.    ^VALTER     BALFOUR.  195 

subject  in  hand."^  In  his  second  letter,  Mr. 
Balfour  considers  that  section  of  the  Professor's 
work  in  which  he  treated  of  the  word  Skeol. 
The  Professor  did  not  maintain  that  there  were 
more  than^i-e  texts,  out  of  the  whole  sixty-four 
instances  in  which  Sheol  occurs  in  the  Bible, 
which  had  relation   to  future  punishment;  and 


*See  the  work  entitled  "  Saturday  Evening,''  3d  Am. 
ed.,  Crocker  &  Brewster,  Boston,  p.  311. 

religion  or  gave  good  reason  to  suppose  that  his  mind  was 
particularly  occupied  with  it.  What  shall  they  think  of 
his  case?  Can  they  feel  that  one  so  dear  to  them,  has 
become  eternally  wretched  ?  an  outcast  forever  from 
God  ?  Can  they  endure  the  thought  that  they  are  never 
to  see  or  associate  with  him  any  more?  Can  heaven  it 
self  be  a  place  of  happiness  for  ttiem,  while  they  are  con- 
scious that  a  husband  or  wife,  a  son  or  a  daughter,  a 
brother  or  a  sister,  is  plunged  into  a  lake  of  fire  from 
when  .-e  there  is  no  escape?  It  is  impossible,  they  aver, 
to  overcome  such  sympathies  as  these.  It  would  be  un- 
natural and  even  monstrous  to  suppress  them.  They 
are,  tlierefore,  as  they  view  ihe  case,  constrained  to  doubt 
whether   the  miseries  of  a  future  world  can  be  endless." 

It  cannot  be  saii,  that  Prof.  Stuart  referred  here  mere- 
ly to  Universalists,  or  those  who  are  associated  with  them. 
It  is  tnuch  more  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  referred  to 
many  members  of  the  Orthodox  churches,  who,  he  knew, 
reisoned  m  this  manner,  taking  good  care,  in  the  mean- 
time, ti>  keep  their  doubts  to  themselves. 

"If  there  are  any  whose  breasts  are  strangers  to  such 
ditBculties  as  these,  they  are  to  be  congratulated  on  hav- 
ing made  attainments  afmost  beyond  the  reach  of  human- 
ity in  the  present  world ;  or  else  to  be  pitied  for  ignorar.ce, 
or  the  want  of  a  sympathy,  which  seems  to  be  among 
the  first  elements   of  our  social  nature.     With  the  great 

13=^ 


196  MEMOIR    OF 

Mr.  Balfour  said,  "  Such  are  your  five  texts 
in  proof  that  Sheol  denotes,  '  the  world  of  mis- 
ery, the  region  of  the  second  death.' "  And  ap- 
plying to  him  his  own  words,  he  said  further, 
"  but  according  to  your  sound  rule  in  philology, 
what  is  there  in  these  texts  or  their  contexts 
w^hich  'imperiously  demands  '  that  Shtol  should 
have  such  a  sense  given  it?  What  there  is 
which  demands  it  here,  I  cannot  see."  In  his 
Third  Letter  Mr.  Balfour  meets  that  part  of  the 

mass  of  thinking  Christians,  1  am  sure  such  thoughts  as 
these  must,  unhappily  for  them,  be  acquaintances  too  fa- 
miliar That  they  agitate  our  breasts  as  storn.s  do  ihe 
mighty  deep,  will  be  testified  by  every  man  of  a  tender 
heart,  and  who  has  a  deep  concern  in  the  present  and  fu- 
ture welfare  of  those  whouj  he  loves 

"  It  would  seem  to  be,  from  such  considerations,  and 
the  like  to  these,  that  a  belief  in  a  future  repentance  and 
recovery  of  sinners,  has  become  so  wide  spread  in  Ger- 
many, pervading  even  the  ranks  of  those  who  are  regard- 
ed as  serious  and  evangelical  men,  in  respect  to  most  or 
all  of  what  is  called  Orthodox  doctrine,  saving  the  point 
before  us.  Such  was  the  case  also  with  some  of  the  an- 
cient fathers,  and  such  is  doubtless  the  case  with  not  a 
few  of  our  day,  who  are  far  removed  from  noisy  and  ob- 
trusive sectarianism,  and  who  even  do  not  venture  posi- 
tively to  assert  and  maintain  the  modified  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal salvation,  viz.,  the  final  restoration  of  all  to  divine 
favor,  after  punishment  and  repentance. 

"Can  we  find  it  in  our  hearts  secretly  to  reproach 
doubters  of  this  retired  and  modest  class;  who  will  not 
even  venture  to  assert  what  they  hope  is  true,  and  on  the 
whole  do  believe  to  be  true.'  " 

These  extracts  from  Prof.  Stuart  may  be  found  in  the 
article  entitled  •'  Future  Punishment,  as  exhibited  in  the 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  197 

'  Exegetical  Essays  '  which  treated  of  the  word 
Hades.  He  followed  the  Professor  from  one  po- 
sition to  another,  carefully  replying  to  every 
thing  he  had  said,  and  showing  that  he  utterly 
failed  to  sustain  his  points.  He  paid  large  at- 
tention to  the  Professor's  argument  founded  on 
the  parable  of  the  Rich  [Man  and  Lazarus,  and 
certain  passages  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  con- 
cerning these  points  he  remarked,  that  "  if  these 
passages  are  the  grounds  on  which  endless  hell 
torments  are  defended,  even  by  Prof.  Stuart, 
[so  manifestly  must  they  be  perverted  from  their 
true  sense  to  make  out  the  points,]  the  day  must 
be  at  hand  when  this  doctrine  will  be  totally  and 
I  hope  forever  abandoned.  The  very  attempt  by 
such  a  man  to  support  it  hy  such  proofs,  proves 
it  is  indefensible  from  the  plain  testimony  of 
God,  and  must  hasten  the  day  of  its  destruc- 
tion." p.  206.  In  letter  fourth,  Mr.  Balfour  con- 
sidered what  the  Professor  had  said  as  it  respects 

Book  of  Enoch,''  American  Biblical  Repository,  for  July, 
1840,  pp  1,2,  17  to  22.  The  Professor  stales  that  his 
own  mind  had  been  "  deeply  anxious  and  distressed  " 
on  this  subject,  p.  28  Pity  he  had  not  learned  of  Jesus, 
instead  of  men,  for  then  he  would  have  found  "  rest  unto 
his  soul,"  Matt,  xi  :  28  to  30.  He  attempts  to  remove  the 
doubts  of  his  brethren  in  reg;ird  to  the  rectitude  of  the 
divine  government  in  view  of  endless  misery,  but  the  at- 
tempt was  a  signal  failure. 


I9S  MEMOIR    OF 

St.  Peter's  use  of  the  word  Tartarus.  The  Pro- 
fessor's great  mistake  here  lay  in  supposing  that 
because  the  apostle  used  a  word  which  had  been 
employed  in  the   heathen  mythology,  therefore 
he  meanot  to  adopt  the  heathen  fables  themselves. 
The   fifth  letter  treats  of  Gehenna;    and  here 
Mr.  Balfour  found   almost  nothing  to  do.     The 
Professor,  had   not   invalidated  one  of  the  great 
facts  brought  out  in  the  First  Inquiry.     He  mis- 
represented Mr.  Balfour  and  the  Universalists 
generally,  in  giving  the  idea  that  they  held  to 
no   sense   being  attached  to  the  word  Gehenna^ 
except  literally  the  valley  of  Hinnom.     All  the 
plausibility  he  gave  to  his   views,  was  founded 
on  that  misrepresentation.     Mr.   Balfour  went 
through   the   work,  replying  with  great  patience 
to  whatever   Prof.  Stuart  had   said  ;  and  at  the 
close  he   rebuked  him  with  severity  for  his  per- 
sonal reflections  on  Universalists,  with  whom  by 
this  time   Mr.  B.  had  become  well  acquainted. 
It  must  be  said  by  every  one  who  looks  candidly 
into  the  matter,  that  the  "  Exegetical  Essays  " 
left  the  First  and  vSecond  Inquiries  utterly  unim- 
paired."^ 

*Mr.  Balfour's  views  of  the  First  and  Second  Inquiries, 
as  affected  by  the  Exegetical  Essays,  were  given,  in  a 
subsequent  puljlication,  in  the  following  words  : 

"Before  Mr.  Stuart's  Essays  appeared,  we  supposed  he 


EEV.    WALTER     BALFOUR. 


199 


The  last  controversial  book  prepared  whitmans 

Letters  to  a 

by  Mr.  Balfour,  was  a  reply  to  a  cer-  o^iversaust. 
tain  section  of  a  work  by  Rev.  Bernard  Whit- 
man, a  Unitarian  clergyman  of  Waltham,  Mass. 
Mr.  W.'s  book  was  entitled,  "  Friendly  Letters 
to  a  Universalist  on  Divine  Rewards  and  Pun- 
ishments.'"'^ Although  regarded  as  a  man  of 
large  liberality,  Mr.  W.  was  by  no  means  friend- 
ly to  Universalists,  especially  that  class  of  them 
who,  like  Mr.  Balfour,  did  not  believe  that  the 
Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  a  future  punish- 
ment for  the  sins   of  this   life.     He  fell  unfortu- 


*it  ca.-ne  out   in   1S33,  and  was  published  by  f?rown, 
Shattuck  &  Co.,  Cambridge. 

must  have  soaiething  new  and  powerful  to  produce  ;  that 
the  Inquiry  would  receive  a  lull  and  fair  reply,  and  that 
I  should  see  in  what  my  error  consisted.  But  we  are  en- 
tirely disappointed  ;  for  like  all  the  preceding  attempts 
to  refute  it,  the  principal  facts  and  arguments  are  passed 
over  without  any  notice.  Indeed,  many  of  Mr.  Stuart's 
statements  confirm  the  views  advanced  in  the  Inquiry. 
We  begin  to  suspect  no  respectable  reply  can  be  njade  to 
it  which  will  prove  that  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus,  or  Ge- 
henna, designates  a  place  of  endless  misery  to  the  wick- 
ed. We  hate  too  high  an  opinion  of  Mr  5?tuail's  under- 
standing, to  think  that  he  considers  his  Essays  deserving 
the  name  of  an  answer  to  the  Inqniry.  We  liave  never 
heard  of  a  single  intelligent  man,  Orthodox  or  otherwise, 
who  thinks  his  Essays  a  reply  to  it.  But  we  have  heard 
several  express  a  contrary  opinion.  If  the  book,  then, 
is  not  unanswerable,  we  may  say  it  yet  remains  unan- 
swered." 


200  MEMOIR    OF 

nately  somewhat  under  the  influence  of  that 
class,  who  had  a  separate  existence  at  that  time, 
and  who  called  themselves  Eestorationists,  b}' 
whom  his  antipathy  to  the  other  class  of  Uni- 
versalists  was  much  increased.  In  163^2,  he  pre- 
paTed  and  published  a  volume  of  sermons,  enti- 
tled "  Village  Sermons,"  which  called  forth  a 
series  of  letters  addressed  to  him,  by  that  highly 
respected  divine,  Rev.  L.  E.  Paige,  of  Cam- 
bridgeport.^  It  was  probably  these  Letters  of 
Mr.  Paige,  w^hich  led  Mr.  Whitman  to  prepare 
his  principal  work,  "  Letters  to  a  Universalist."! 
It  was  a  duodecimo  volume  of  856  pages;  the 
largest  work,  we  believe,  ever  produced  by  that 
author.  It  consisted  of  twelve  letters.  The 
spirit  of  it  was  unfriendly  to  that  class  of  Uni- 
versalists  who  did  not  profess  to  believe  in  future 
punishment  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  It  was  a 
work  prepared  in  great  haste, — some  of  the 
arguments  were  weak  and  sophistical,  and  such 
as  the  author  himself  would,  upon  further  reflec- 
tion, have  rejected. t     This  was   the   first,  and, 


*See  Memoir  of  the  Rev.  Bernard  Whitman,  hy  Jiisnn 
Whitman.  Boston:  B.  H.  Greene,  1837;  p.  103.  lor 
Rev.  Mr.  Paige's  Letters,  see  Irunipet,  vol.  v.,  pp.  16, 
17,  21,  25,  36,  37. 

tMenioir  of  Whitman,  p.  104. 

4:"  This  volume  was  prepared  under  unfavorable  circum- 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  201 

indeed  only  attack  ever  made  by  Unitarians 
upon  Mr.  Balfour's  views  o(  Geherma ;  though 
be  it  remembered,  that  Mr.  Whitman,  imitating 
the  false  dignity  of  Prof.  Stuart,  sought  to  un- 
dermine the  first  "  Inquiry,"  without  naming 
either  the  work  or  its  author. 

In  the  summer  of  1S34,  came  out  saifour-^  Reply 
Mr.  Balfour's  answer.     He  did  not    ^'^^^«-*°- 
reply  to  the  whole  book,  for   that  he  was  under 
no   particular  obligation   to   do;  but  he  took  up 
merely  the   sixth  chapter,  in  which  his  views  of 
Gehe?ina  had  been  assailed. "^    He  stated  that  he 

*See  "A  Letter  to  Rev.  Bernard  Whitman,  on  the 
term  Gehenna,  rendered  hell  in  the  Common  Version. 
By  Walter  Balfour.  Boston:  Thomas  Whittemore  and 
B    B    Mussey,  1834  "     Duodecimo,  pp.  96. 

stances,  and  written  in  great  haste,  and  without  opportu- 
nity for  r8-«xamination.  JMr.  Whitman  sent  to  the  jjrinter 
each  mornmg  what  he  had  written  during  the  [irevious 
day.  Under  these  circumstances  it  will  not  be  thought 
strange  that  the  volume  should  contain  some  arguments 
which  are  weak  or  sophistical,  and  which  the  author  him- 
self would,  upon  further  reflection,  ha\e  rejected."  See 
the  .Memoir  of  Whitman,  before  referred  to,  written  by 
his  brother,  p.  104.  See  also  the  following  extract  : 
"  This  volume  ('  Letters  to  a  Universalist ')  was  fjrepared 
in  great  h;iste,  from  materials  furnished  in  part  by  the 
author's  friends,  and  without  sufficient  care  in  the  selec- 
tion and  arrangement  of  topics.  It  is  diffuse  to  a  fault, 
and  contains  some  instances  of  weak  and  irrelevant  reas- 
oning." Christian  Examiner,  for  July,  1837,  p.  355. 
The  article  in  the  "Examiner"  was  from  the  pen  of 
Rev.  A.  P.  Peabody,  the  Unitarian  clergyman  of  Ports- 
month.  N.  H. 


202 


MEMOIR    OF 


had  no  objection  to  replying  to  the  whole  of 
Mr.  AVhitman's  book  on  certain  conditions, 
which  were,  however,  never  complied  with. 
Whether  Mr.  W.  would  have  complied  with 
them,  had  his  life  been  spared,  is  doubtful ;  but 
about  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  reply, 
he  w*as  attacked  with  consumption,  and  died 
early  in  the  month  of  November,  1S34.  Had 
Mr.  Balfour  known  that  Mr.  W.'s  sickness  and 
death  were  so  soon  to  follow,  he  would  not  prob- 
ably have  made  the  reply.  Mr.  Balfour  com- 
plained, and  very  justly,  that  Mr.  Whitman  had 
"  grossly  misrepresented  his  views  of  Gehenna 
punishment,"  and  hence  that  much  of  his  labor 
was  merely  fighting  a  man  of  straw;  for  Mr. 
W.  sought  to  persuade  his  readers  that  Mr.  B. 
held  that  Gehenna  must  be  taken  in  its  literal 
sense,  as  a  place  of  corporeal  punishment  in  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  near  Jerusalem.  On  the  con- 
trary Mr.  B.  held,  and  had  defended  the  opinion 
at  length  in  his  First  Inquiry,  that  although  this 
was  the  literal  sense,  its  general  use  in  the  New 
Testament  was  to  signify  the  judgments  which 
came  upon  the  Jews.  The  reply  was  very  nat- 
urally divided  into  three  parts,  viz :  1st.  An 
exposure  of  Mr.  Whitman's  misrepresentations 
of  the   "  Inquiry,"  and  an   examination   of  his 


REV.    WALTER    BALFOUR.  203 

classification  of  the  passages  in  which  Gehenna 
occurs,  and  of  his  views  of  the  sense  of  that 
term.  2d.  An  examination  of  his  proof  adduced 
from  the  Targums,  and  other  Jewish  writings  of 
alleged  antiquity,  in  defence  of  the  opinion  that 
Christ  and  James  intended  by  Gehenna  ^'spirit- 
ual punishment  in  the  future  state."  And  3d. 
An  examination  of  Mr.  W.'s  reply  to  Mr.  B.'s 
objecrions  to  the  common  use  of  Gehenna. 

This  is  perhaps  one  of  the  most  pointed 
and  spirited  of  all  Mr.  B.'s  works.  He  dealt 
with  his  opponent  in  a  plain,  matter-of-fact  man- 
ner. He  was  not  accustomed  to  hold  up  false 
appearances.  Wherever  he  could  with  consist- 
ency, respect  and  honor  his  opponent,  he  did  it 
cheerfully;  but  he  did  not  hesitate  to  give  utter- 
ance to  his  thoughts,  when  called  on  to  expose 
pedantry,  vanity  and  misrepresentation.  He 
was  accustomed  to  go  into  the  open  field  ;  he 
threw  his  whole  soul  into  the  Chrustian  warfare; 
in  fiict,  he  was  one  of  the  most  truly  honest  men 
that  ever  lived,  who  spoke  out  exactly  what  he 
thought  it  his  duty  to  say.  It  was  these  attri- 
butes that  gave  to  the  Reply  to  Whitman  its  se- 
verity."^ 

*Mr.  \'i  hitman  strited  (p.  194)  that  lie  eniploved  Rev. 
George  iNichols   and   liev.  A.  P.  Peabody,    tutor   in  H 


204 


MEMOIR    OF 


General  Thus  had  Mf.  BalfouT  sustained  him- 
^^''^'  self  at  every  point.  He  had  defended 
his  two  "Inquiries"  against  the  attacks  of  all 
who  had  assailed  them.  This  was  what  he 
avowed,  at  the  beginning,  he  would  do;  and  he 
followed  up  that  resolution.  j\]r.  Whitman  had 
been  regarded  as  a  theological  champion  among 
the  Unitarians,  since  the  publication  of  his  cele- 
brated Sermon  at  Waltham,  in  1S*27,  on  denying 
the  Lord  Jesus.  No  one  can  read  the  chapter  in 
his  "  Letters,"  (viz.,  that  which  treats  of  Gehen- 
na,) and  compare  it  with  Mr.  Balfour's  Reply, 
without  being  perfectly  satisfied   that  every  one 

brew  and  Mathenititics  in  Harvard  University,  to  assist 
hitn  in  making  exaininations  into  the  Targums  and  Tal- 
muds.  He  said,  "they  have  spent  hours  and  days  in 
poring  over  the  Targums  and  Tahnuds,  and  other  author- 
ities in  various  ancient  and  modern  languages."  A  per- 
son who  knew  the  facts  in  the  case,  would  smile  at  such 
a  statement.  It  appeared,  that  all  the  extracts  from  the 
Targums  and  Talmuds  which  appeared  in  IMr.  Wliitman's 
book,  were  copied  second-hand  from  Wetstein's  New 
Testament  ;  and  Mr.  Whitman's  friends  did  not  so  much 
as  verify  their  quotations  by  referring  to  the  originals,  as 
they  copied  VVetstein's  mistakes,  which  such  a  reference 
would  have  corrected.  Quoting  from  Wetstein,  they 
spake  of  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  on  Canticles  and  .lob, 
whereas  there  is  no  such  Targum  in  exisience.  Wet- 
stein make  the  mistake,  and  Mr.  Whitman's  friends  blind- 
ly followed  him.  In  1837,  Mr.  Peabody,  who  had  then 
removed  to  Portsmouth,  N  H.,  and  become  the  pastor  of 
the  Unitarian  Society  there,  caused  to  be  publisbed  in  the 
"Christian   Examiner,"   a  Review  of  the   "  Memoir  of 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  205 

of  Mr.  W.'s  positions  in  regard  to  Gehenna  is 
broken  down,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  "  First 
Inquiry "  is  fully  sustained.  It  was  publicly 
asked,  two  years  afterwards,  by  a  very  intelli- 
gent man,  "  If,  with  the  assistance  which  Mr. 
Whitman  acknowledges  he  had  received  from 
the  Library  and  tutors  of  Harvard  College,  he 
failed,  is  it  not  fair  presumptive  evidence,  that  so 
far  as  the  term  Gehenna  is  concerned  in  the  con- 
troversy between  Universalists  and  their  oppo- 
nents, the  former  have  truth  upon  their  side  ?  "=^ 

*Trumpet,  vol.  viii :  p.  205. 

Whitman,"  in  which  he  referred  to  the  "  Letters  to  a 
Universalist,"  and  repeated  the  story  as  to  the  "  critical 
researclies''  that  had  been  made  at  the  library  of  Har- 
vard College  to  obtain  materials  for  that  work.  This  fact 
drew  out  from  Rev.  L.  R.  Paige  two  articles,  entitled 
"  Tricks  of  Authorship,"  in  which  he  exposed  the  fact 
that  the  extracts  professedly  made  from  theTargums  and 
Talmuds  were  copied  second-hand  from  VVetstein;  and 
that  the  extracts  were  not  verified  by  comparison  with 
the  original.  Trumpet,  vol.  x  :  14,  18.  Mr.  Balfour  al- 
so was  drawn  out  once  more  in  a  "  Letter  to  the  Rev. 
A.  P  Pe  iboiJy."  He  asked  that  reverend  gentleman  cer- 
tain very  important  and  pungent  questions.  At  the  end, 
he  invited  him  to  a  discussion  of  the  question  as  to  the 
facts  concerning  Gehenna,  advanced  in  the  "  First  la- 
quiry,"  saying,  "  I  am  perfectly  wilhng  you  should  take 
Targum  ground,  Talmud  ground,  Bible  ground,  or  any 
other  ground  which  best  answers  your  purpose.''  Trum- 
pet, vol.  X.,  p.  29.  Mr.  Peabody  made  no  reply  to  this 
epistle. 


206  MEMOIR    OF 


Parsons  Cooke  Rev.  PaTSOTis  Cooke  was,  among  the 
Mr  Baifoar.  Oithodox,  what  Mt.  Whitman  had 
been  among  the  Unitarians.  He  felt  a  strong 
desire  to  wield  the  sword  of  controversy.  He 
had  attacked  the  Unitarians  with  great  vigor  in 
the  early  part  of  his  ministry.  But  as  he  gained 
more  experience,  he  felt  that  "as  the  occasion 
for  controversy  with  the  Unitarians  seemed  to 
be  subsiding,  the  occasion  to  contend  with  the 
Universalists  seemed  to  be  increasing.'"^  He 
came  out,  therefore,  with  a  duodecimo  volume  of 
247  pages,  entitled  "  Modern  Universalism  ex- 
posed, in  an  examination  of  the  writings  of  Rev. 
Walter  Balfour."  He  treated  on  the  immortal- 
ity of  the  soul;  the  intermediate  state;  the  fu- 
ture judgment;  eternal  life  ;  the  words  eternal, 
everlasting  and  forever,  as  applied  to  punish- 
ment; the  meaning  of  the  words  Sheol,  Hades, 
Tartarics  and  Gehenna;  the  existence  and  agen- 
cy of  evil  spirits;  the  credulity  of  Mr.  Balfour's 
disciples ;  and  the  sources  of  Universalism. 
Thus  Mr.  Cooke  covered  the  Avhole  ground  of 
all  Mr.  Balfour's  works.  It  must  be  confessed, 
however,  that  Mr.  C.'s  work  never  seems  to  have 


*See  "Modern  Universalism  Exposed,  in  an  examina- 
tion of  the  writings  of  Rev.  Waller  Balfour."  By  Par- 
sous  Cooke,  of  Ware,  Mass.     Lowell,  1834. 


Mr.  BaliouT'g 
Reply  tc  Cooke. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  207 

been  highly  regarded,  even  by  the  Orthodox 
themselves.  It  has  been  but  little  used,  and  we 
believe  no  second  edition  ever  appeared.  It  was 
marked  by  cunning,  rather  than  sound  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  Balfour  did  not  think  it  neces- 
sary to  bring  out  another  book.  If 
Mr.  Cooke's  profundity  of  investigation  would 
permit  him  to  answer^zye  or  six  large  volumes  of 
closely  arranged  facts,  in  a  duodecimo  of  247 
pages,  giving  up,  too,  the  most  of  this  space  to 
subjects  that  might  well  have  been  spared,  Mr. 
Balfour  believed  that  it  was  best  the  reply  should 
be  given  in  the  columns  of  a  religious  newspa- 
per. He  availed  himself,  therefore,  of  the 
"  Trumpet;  "  and  the  reply  came  out  in  a  series 
of  Lett3rs  in  the  years  1834  and  lS3o.  He  ex- 
amined all  Mr.  Cooke's  principal  positions,  and 
showed  that  they  were  untenable.  He  showed, 
furthermore,  that  Mr.  C.  had  abandoned  all  the 
distinctive  points  of  Calvinism,  and  planted  him- 
self fully  upan  Arm.inian  ground.  The  spirit 
manifested  in  Mr.  C.'s  work,  and  the  misrepre- 
sentations with  which  it  abounded,  were  made 
clearly  manifest.  Mr.  B.  took  up  section  after 
section;  set  off  one  part  against  another;  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  administer  the  rebukes  which 


208  MEMOIR    OF 

Mr.  C.'s  temper,  censoriousness  and  sectarian 
pride  called  for.^  In  concluding,  he  made  the 
following  proposition  to  Mr.  Cook : 

"  Before  T  conclude,  I  submit  to  you  the  following 
proposals  :  Will  you  be  pleased  to  select  one  or  two 
of  your  strongest  texts,  and  on  which  you  are  willing 
to  rest  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  and  let  us  thor- 
oughly examine  their  true  meaning.  I  take  the  lib- 
erty to  suggest  2  Thess.  i:  6  to  11,  as  Prof.  Stuart, 
Dr.  Allen  and  others,  seem  willing  to  risk  the  whole 
controversy  upon  it.  Besides,  1  frankly  confess  to 
you,  when  I  was  a  believer  in  endless  punishment,  I 
considered  this  the  strongest  text  in  its  support. 
Should  you  be  pleased  to  fix  on  this  text,  I  hereby 
pledge  myself  to  abide  the  issue.  Prove  that  it  teach- 
es endless  punishment,  and  I  shall  give  you  no  more 
trouble  about  Universalism." 

Mr  Cooke  ^^^-  Cooko,  in  a  formal  letter,  declined 
decuz.e«.  ^j^g  proffered  controversy.  "Mr.  Bal- 
four," said  he,  "  is  welcome  to  all  the  advantage 
of  having  the  last  word,  and  of  my  declining  his 
challenge."  t  Thus  the  matter  ended,  and  thus 
ended  the  last  controversy  in  which  Mr.  Balfour 
ever  engaged.  There  were  small  matters  which 
came  up,  from  time  to  time,  and  which  clain^.ed  his 
attention;  but  nothing  that  might  properly  be 
dignified  by  the  name  of  a  controversy. 


*See  Trumpet,   vol.  vii.,  pp.   17,  29,  37.  53,  65,  81, 
125,  173. 

tSee  Boston  Recorder  of  May  15th,  1835. 


CHAP.  VIII. 

Mr.  Balfour's  Labors  Draw  to  a  Close. 

Mr.  Balfour  continued  to  preach,  though 
with  less  frequency,  up  to  the  year  1S47. 
But  before  that  year,  it  became  apparent  to 
his  family  and  friends,  who  watched  his  course 
with  much  solicitude,  that  the  days  of  his  ac- 
tivity were  fast  passing  away.  In  the  year 
1842  came  out  the  third  edition  of  his  "  Second 
Inquiry."  In  this  edition  a  third  part  was  added, 
"  On  the  possession  of  devils  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament."  He  had  no  occasion  to  make 
any  other  alteration,  for  he  had  seen  no  reason 
to  change  his  opinions  in  respect  to  any  of  the 
subjects  embraced  in  the  work.  To  the  day  of 
his  death,  although  he  had  availed  himself  of 
every  opportunity  to  examine  and  re-examine  his 
arguments,  he  saw  no  reason  to  change  his  opin- 
ion as  to  any  doctrine  he  had  defended.  He  died 
in  the  full  belief  of  the  truths  he  had  inculcated. 
It  was  not  uncommon  for  the  editors  of  the  par- 
tialist  journals,  and  for  over-zealous  and  rash 
14 


210  MEMOIR    ^F 

preachers,  to  misrepresent  his  views,  especially 
on  the  subject  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  or 
of  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word  Gehenna. 
He  sometimes  would  reply  through  the  columns 
of  a  Universalist  journal,  and  sometimes  would 
let  such  matters  pass  as  altogether  unworthy  of 
attention,  since  it  would  seem  impossible  that 
any  honest  man  could  be  deceived  by  such 
means. "^^  In  the  summer  of  1844,  he  delivered 
a  sermon  in  Newburyport,  on  "  Salvation  by 
Grace,"  in  which  he  discussed  the  questions, 
By  what  are  men  saved  ?  through  what  are  they 
saved?  and  from  what  are  they  saved?  This 
sermon  had  been  listened  to  by  Eev.  Stephen 
Farley,  among  others,  a  Unitarian  clergyman, 
residing  in  Amesbury,  Mass.  A  brief  corres- 
pondence took  place  between  them,  in  which 
Mr.  Balfour  explicitly  avowed  that  he  had  his 
religious  education  in  the  kirk  of  Scotland,  where 
he  got  his  earliest  views  of  the  grace  of  God ; 
and  that  he  had  never  seen  reason  to  depart  from 
his  belief  that  salvation  was  by  grace  alone. t 
In  November  of  this  year,  (1844,)  a  friend  of 
his  proposed  in  the  public  papers,  that  a  uni- 
form edition  of  his  works  should  be  published, 


♦See  Trumpet,  vol.  xv.,  pp.  138,  150,  177,  194,  197. 
tTrumpet,  xvii :  1,  17,  22,  37,  45,  57. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  211 

with  an  autobiography,  assigning  as  a  reason 
why  it  should  be  done  at  once,  that  "  he  was  fast 
declining,"  and  that  if  it  were  not  done  soon,  the 
opportunity  would  be  passed  for  him  to  do  it. 
He  was  able  to  preach  but  little.^  In  August, 
1846,  he  lifted  up  his  monitory  voice  to  Univer- 
salists  in  regard  to  studying  the  Scriptures.  One 
editor  said,  in  introducing  his  sentiments,  "the 
public  of  late  does  not  often  hear  the  voice  of 
that  faithful  old  Bible  Christian,  Father  Balfour. 
His  health,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  is  far  from  being 
perfect.  A  slight  paralysis  that  came  upon  him 
two  or  three  yeefrs  ago,  has  much  enfeebled  his 
step ;  yet  he  is  still  able  to  go  about,  and  occa- 
sionally preaches."  Speaking  of  Universalists, 
he  said — 

"  They  ought  to  see  to  it  that  Universalists  in  name 
be  also  Christians,  and  able  and  \villin?to  defend  what 
they  beUeve  from  the  Scriptures.  There  can  be  no 
safety  from  controversy  until  Christians  are  correctly 
and  generally  instructed  in  ike  Scriptures,  for  so  long 
as  general  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures  prevails,  there 
will  always  be  some  who  will  impose  on  the  ignorant 
for  selfish  and  sectarian  purposes." 


♦The  last  sermon  ever  preached  by  Father  Balfour  was 
delivered  in  Maiden,  on  Sunday,  26th  Sept.,  1847,  on 
which  occasion  he  officiated  through  the  day.  His  ser- 
mons were  observed  to  be  delivered  not  with  his  accus- 
tomed vigor. 

14^ 


212 


MEMOIR  OF 


In  July,  184S,  the  aged  father  was  called  to 
part  with  a  dearly  beloved  son — a  bright  orna- 
ment to  his  family — Charles  Devens  Balfour, 
aged  34.  The  prominent  type  in  the  character 
of  the  son  was  filial  love.  Threatened  long  with 
a  pulmonary  complaint,  he  had  resided  in  the 
West  Indies,  for  the  benefit  of  a  tropical  climate ; 
and  by  successful  business,  he  had  amassed  a 
considerable  fortune.  But  climate  and  medical 
aid  availed  him  but  little  ;  and  he  returned  to 
his  native  town  and  breathed  his  last  breath  be- 
neath his  father's  roof.  The  father  then  was  so 
enfeebled  in  his  powers  of  lo.comotion,  that  it 
was  with  much  difficulty  he  came  down  stairs  to 
the  funeral.  He  bore  the  affliction  like  a  man 
sustained  with  Christian  hope.  He  knew  in 
whom  he  believed.  Although  he  differed  from 
many  in  his  views  of  the  inherent  immortality 
of  the  soul,  yet  he  had  full  consolation  in  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  These 
convictions  he  again  asserted  in  October,  1848.'^ 
He  believed  them  to  be  the  result  of  a  careful 
study  of  God's  word,  and  they  were  dear  to  his 
heart. 

A  last  Letter       ^"  ^^^  pubHcatlon  of  Prof.  Cros- 
by's edition   of  the  celebrated  Letter 


to  Prof   aiuart 


♦Trumpet,  xxi :  68. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  213 

of  Hev.  John  Foster,  (with  notes  and  appendix,) 
in  the  spring  of  1S49,  Mr.  Balfour  was  greatly- 
moved  with  the  extract  therein  given  from  Prof. 
Stuart's  article  in  the  Biblical  Repository  of  Ju- 
ly, 1840.  The  character  of  this  article  has  been 
very  fully  shown  in  a  p-eceding  note.^  Mr.  Bal- 
four saw,  or  thought  he  saw,  that  a  great  change 
had  taken  place  in  the  Professor's  mind  and  feel- 
ings ;  and  though  weak  and  feeble,  he  could  not 
refrain  from  addressing  him  once  more.  He 
realised  that  the  Professor  had  brought  him  in- 
to Universalism,  and  now  it  seemed  almost  as  if 
the  Professor  was  himself  knocking  at  the  door. 

"  Sir, — iVny  one  who  has  read  yourExesfetical  Es- 
says, mast  see  what  a  wonderful  change  has  taken 
place  in  your  mind  since  you  wrote  them,  respectinor 
Universalists,  particularly  the  Restorationists.  Its 
temper,  its  tone  and  hinguasie,  are  radically  changed 
from  the  lion  to  the  lamb.  What  smooth  and  honeyed 
language  is  now  used  to  your  Orthodox  brethren,  who 
are  in  doubt  about  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment." 

Mr.  Balfour  assured  the  Professor  he  still  held 
fast  the  doctrines  of  the  First  and  Second  In- 
quiries and  the  Reply  to  the  Exegetical  Essays. 

"  It  is  plain  from  your  statements,  that  endless  pun- 
ishment is  on  the  wane  among  Orthodox  preachers, 

*See  pp.  190  to  197  of  this  work. 


214  MEMOIR    OF 

and  you  seem  to  be  vastly  cooled  down  in  its  defence. 
And  of  late  years  there  is  but  little  talking  or  preach- 
ing about  it.  Ministers  in  this  region  jseem  to  be 
afraid,  or  ashamed,  to  bring  endless  punishment  into 
the  pulpit,  and  when  they  do  it,  they  handle  the  sub- 
ject very  briefly.  T  have  no  doubt  but  some  of  them 
have  found  out  that  preaching  endless  punishment  is 
not  the  best  way  of  making  substantial  and  durable 
Christians.  Thny  are  so  sick  of  seeing  so  much  chaff 
brought  into  their  churches  by  this  kind  of  preaching, 
that  they  are  now  trying  what  preaching  Jesus  Christ 
and  him  crucified  '  can  accomplish.  Endless  punish- 
ment is  dying  out  among  us,  and  it  will  die  out  of  the 
world  in  proportion  as  Christ's  religion  prevails  in  it." 

Mr.  Balfour  acknowledged  to  the  Professor  he 
had  found  many  good  things  in  his  works,  and 
been  profited  by  ihem.  He  invited  him  to  ex- 
press himself  freely  on  the  subject  of  human 
salvation,  and  almost  seemed  to  expect  from  him 
an  avowal  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the  final  sal- 
vation of  all  men.  To  their  age,  and  his  own 
increasing  infirn:)ities,  he  makes  the  following 
touching  allusion  : 

"  We  are  both  old  men,  encompassed  with  bodily 
infirmities,  and  are  near  the  grave.  ]f  either  or  both 
of  us  are  in  any  important  errors,  we  have  but  little 
time  left  us  for  furtlier  research,  and  a  rectification  of 
them.  If  you  have  any  further  light  to  impart  from 
the  Bible,  1  should  like  to  see  it,  for  I  am  willing  to 
die  \n  the  harness,  in  my  search  after  truth.  But 
what  is  done  ought  to  be  done  quickly  ;  for  I  shall 
soon  be  beyond  its  doing  me  any  good,  by  death  or 
increasing  bodily  infirmity." 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  215 

This,  we  think,  was  the  last  epistle  ever  pub- 
lished from  his  pen.  The  last  article  written  by 
him  for  any  public  paper,  appeared  in  the  "  La- 
dies' Repository,"  for  April,  1650.  It  was  a  no- 
tice of  Chapin's  work  on  the  Lord's  Prayer.  He 
sent  an  article  subsequently  to  the  "  Trumpet," 
(May  IS,  1S50);  but  he  intimated  at  the  end  that 
the  article  had  been  written  for  several  months, 
and  that  the  power  of  writing  had  forsaken  him. 

"  This  article  was  written  more  than  six  months 
ago,  before  1  was  disabled  from  writing.  I  send  it 
without  any  additions,  and  with  hardly  any  correc- 
tions,/or  I  am  not  able  to  attend  to  such  things.''^ 

Feeble  in  body,  but  strong  in  faith,  ^e^,^^.  a. 
the  good  old  saint  attracted  both  the  ^'"''^' '''^'** 
sympathy  and  admiration  of  those  who  visited 
him.  We  avail  ourselves  of  the  language  of 
Rev.  W.  A.  Drew,  of  Augusta,  to  describe  a 
visit  that  he  made  to  the  sinking  patriarch  on  the 
5th  of  November,  1850  : 

"  He  cannot  walk  without  much  assistance,  and  is 
mostly  confined  to  his  chair  and  bed.  He  appeared 
pale,  ar.d  bore  the  marks  of  an  age  beyond  his  years. 
He  is  now  in  his  seventy-sixth  year.  If  ever  we  saw 
the  scriptural  figure  of  a  '  shock  of  corn  fully  ripe,' 
verified  in  the  ripening  piety  of  an  earthly  being,  we 
thought  we  saw  it  in  the  submissive  looks,  the  patient 
spirit  and  the  triumphant  joys  of  Father  Balfour. 
God  has  brought  him  upon  the  last  perch  of  life,  and 


216  MEMOIR    OF 

given  him  winps  of  faith,  with  v-hich  he  is  just  ready 
to  fly  away  from  earth  and  be  at  rest  in  heaven.  We 
asked  him  if  he  had  seen  any  cause  yet  to  renounce 
his  faith  in  a  world's  salvation?  His  characteristic 
reply  was  in  these  very  words!  'I  have  seen  no 
cause  to  change  this  faith  ;  when  I  do,  the  world  will 
know  it ;  I  am  not  one  of  the  men  who  helieve  a  thing, 
right  or  wrong.'  We  remarked  to  him  that  we  be- 
lieved his  views  of  religion  v.  ere  alv\ays  what  are 
technically  called  evangelical.  After  a  brief  criticism 
on  the  word  evangelical,  as  relating  to  good  news,  he 
replied  that  he  had  alwaye  been  a  friend  of  experi- 
mental religion,  and  trusted  he  always  should  enjoy  it. 
The  morality  of  heaihen  philosophers,  which  was  as 
pure  as  the  morality  of  modern  philosoj  hers,  he 
thought  had  not  the  vital  power  in  it  which  belongs 
to  the  Christian  religion.  He  had  tried  to  live  an 
honest  man  before  men,  and  he  trusted  he  should  die 
such  before  God.  None  could  doubt  this  vho  ever 
knew  him.  He  was  anxious  for  the  purity  of  our 
ministry.  He  would  condemn  none  for  their  infirmi- 
ties, and  even  when  he  spoke  with  emphasis  against 
the  misconduct  of  one  that  shall  here  be  nameless, 
he  would  only  say — 'I  am  soiry  for  him,  from  the 
bottom  of  my  heart.  He  loves  the  cause,  but  does 
not  so  love  it  as,  for  the  sake  of  a  fakse  peace,  to  wink 
at  and  apologize  for  sin.' 

"  His  rooTi  was  hung  with  several  pictures  from 
scenes  in  the  Scriptures,  executed  in  Italy,  and  were 
brought  home  by  his  most  excellent  son,  Charles  D. 
Balfour,  Esq.,  a  bright  scholar  who  travelled  exten- 
sively in  Europe,  arid  died  a  few  years  ago.  His 
death  was  a  great  affliction,  not  only  to  his  parents 
and  brothers  and  sisters,  hut  to  a  large  social  and  lit- 
erary circle  which  held  him  in  the  very  highest  es- 
teem. After  viewing  these  pictures,  the  good  old 
father  desired  us  to  go — nay,  he  wished  to  accompany 
us  himself— into  the  other  parlor,  across  the  front  en- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  217 

try,  there  to  inspect  other  paintini^s,  and  especially  to 
see  the  admirably  executed  likeness  of  his  departed 
son  He  asked  us  to  assist  him.  He  wished  to  walk 
once  more,  and  to  do  so  leaning  on  us,  one  of  his  old 
friends.  We  helped  raise  him  from  his  arm  chair, 
and  supported  his  whole  lefi  side  with  our  right  arm, 
whilst  he  supported  his  right  by  the  aid  of  a  staff.  In 
this  way  he  tottered  along,  slowly  moving  one  foot  a 
few  inches  at  a  time  beyond  the  other.  We  were  glad 
to  be  his  conductor  on  so  long  and  on  so  interesting  a 
journey.  In  due  time  we  had  emerged  from  his  room, 
crossed  the  entry,  and  stood  before  the  image  of  his 
son  in  the  parlor.  He  did  not  kuow  we  saw  the  tear 
gather  in  his  eye — he  sought  to  conceal  it — but  that 
tears  should  flow  at  the  remembrance  of  such  a  son, 
was  both  natural  and  commendable.  He  has  yet  two 
sons  living  who  are  able,  and,  we  are  happy  to  say, 
esteem  it  their  highest  privilege  to  contribute  to  the 
support  and  comtort  of  their  aged  and  worthy  pa- 
rents. The  daughter,  too,  who  is  with  them,  is  sedu- 
lous and  unremitting  in  her  efforts  to  serve  the  faith- 
ful and  affectionate  father  and  mother  of  a  dutiful  and 
beloved  family.  After  inspecting  the  paintings,  and 
witnessing  other  curiosities,  the  return  journey  was 
commenced,  and  in  due  time  accomplished  ;  and  as 
we  replaced  the  patriarch  in  his  arm  chair,  he  ex- 
claimed— '  There,  Br.  Drew,  this  is  the  longest  jour- 
ney I  have  performed  for  a  great  while  ;  perhaps  it  is 
the  last  I  ever  shall  take,  and  you  have  been  my  sup- 
porter in  it.  My  journey  of  life  is  almost  finished, 
during  which  I  have  been  always  supported  by  kind 
friends  ;  my  final  rest  I  trust  will  be  glorious.'  "  * 

Such   was   the  feebleness  of  the  aged -^  ^.^^, 
saint,   on  the   5th   of  November,    1850.  *" 


*See  the  "  Gospel  Banner  "  of  23d  Nov.,  1850. 


218  MEMOIR    OF 

A  friend,  who  called  on  him  in  September,  1S51, 
described  his  condition  in  the  following  terms : 

"  He  seems  as  cheerful  and  resigned  as  a  man  in 
his  situation  can  be.  Sickness  wears  upon  the  minds 
of  men,  as  well  as  their  bodies.  Father  Balfour  ap- 
pears bright,  however,  considering  his  weakness  and 
long  confinement.  He  has  utterly  lost  the  power  of 
locomotion.  Through  the  day  he  sits,  and  through 
the  night  he  lies;  but  he  caimot  walk,  or  even  rise 
from  his  chair  or  bed  without  help,  any  more  than  a 
babe.  He  has  a  faithful  and  affectionate  wife,  in  good 
heahh,  and  sons  and  daughters  around  him  ;  and  it  is 
the  ardent  wish  of  all  lo  have  him  enjoy  all  the  com- 
forts of  which  he  is  capable." 

The  last  scene  was  rapidly  drawing  near.  His 
mind  remained  unclouded.  On  all  the  great 
events  of  his  life  he  looked  back  with  satisfac- 
tion; and  he  held  fast  the  doctrines  he  had  de- 
fended. Not  the  slightest  doubt  passed  over 
him  in  regard  to  them.  He  trusted  in  God ;  he 
trusted  in  Christ;  he  had  a  hope  full  of  immor- 
tality. When  the  new  year  dawned,  it  found 
him  still  alive;  but  very,  very  feeble.  He  lay 
utterly  helpless.  His  voice  had  become  a  whis- 
per; the  heart  almost  refused  to  act.  Still, 
however,  he  lingered  until  Saturday,  January 
3d,  1852,  at  9  a.  m.,  when  he  expired,  gently  as 
a  babe  falls  to  sleep.  His  funeral  was  attended 
on  the   following   Monday,  from  his  dwelling- 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  219 

house,  in  the  most  private  manner.  Prayer  was 
offered  by  Rev.  A.  A.  Miner,  of  Boston.  One 
of  his  daughters  being  at  the  time  sick  with  the 
small  pox,  it  was  rendered  the  more  desirable 
that  only  his  most  intimate  friends  should  be 
present.  But  on  the  preceding  day  (Sunday) 
the  Universalist  clergy  of  Boston  and  vicinity, 
made  honorable  references  to  his  life,  services, 
and  usefulness.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
Prof.  Stuart  died  on  the  day  following  that  of 
Mr.  Balfour's  death.  Thus  the  fiat  of  heaven 
seemed  to  connect  the  events  of  their  deaths  as 
it  had  those  of  their  lives.  Many  of  the  public 
journals  made  touching  allusions  to  the  lives  and 
deaths  of  both. 

In  sketching  the  character  of  the  sub-  ch=iracter 
ject  of  this  memoir,  we  feel  a  fear  that  ° 
we  cannot  say  truly  what  we  think  of  him,  with- 
out being  suspected  of  exaggeration.  When  w^e 
speak  of  a  'departed  friend,  who  would  never, 
when  living,  permit  any  person  to  praise  him, 
our  words  should  certainly  be  few,  and  fitly 
chosen. 

He  was  by  nature  an  honest  man.  We  will 
not  say  there  never  was  one  more  so ;  but  we  must 
say,  loe  never  knew  a  person  who  excelled  him  in 
this  respect.     He  was  incapable  of  a  lie,  or  of 


220 


MEMOIR    OF 


evasion.  Who  can  call  to  mind  an  instance  of 
the  slightest  prevarication  or  shuffling  in  him  ? 
So  regardful  was  he  of  truth,  so  well  defined 
was  his  character  in  this  respect,  that  among  all 
who*  knew  him,  he  would  have  been  believed  in 
a  case  in  which  he  was  not  liable  to  a  mistake, 
against  the  testimony  of  a  hundred  common 
men.  It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  he  could  not 
endure  hypocrisy,  or  evasion,  and  more  especial- 
ly falsehood  in  any  one.  As  surely  as  the  me- 
tallic point  draws  the  lightning,  were  hypocrisy 
and  falsehood  certain  to  draw  from  him  a  with- 
ering and  almost  annihilating  rebuke.  He  was 
a  truly  humble  man.  He  had  a  sense  of  inju- 
ries, but  he  never  thought  highly  of  himself. 
He  could  not  brook  dictation,  or  pride,  or  super- 
ciliousness in  any  one  ;  and  this  was  the  attri- 
bute of  his  mind,  which  sometimes  gave  tartness 
and  severity  to  his  controversial  writings.  This 
appears  in  his  replies  to  Rev.  B.  Whitnian,  tind 
especially  to  Rev.  Parsons  Cooke.  But,  not- 
withstanding what  we  here  say,  he  was  a  truly 
courteous  man.  No  one  would  go  farther  to 
oblige  another ;  no  one  respected  the  aged  more 
than  he;  no  one  would  more  cheerfully  conde- 
scend to  assist  the  young;  no  one  heard  a  tale 
of  true  sorrow  more  patiently ;    no  one  received 


REV.     WALTER   BALFOUR.  221 

his  friends,  or  even  strangers,  with  more  cordial- 
ity. His  politeness  did  not  waste  itself  in  forms 
of  speech,  but  it  shone  out  like  the  sun  on  clouds, 
illuminating-  and  softening  the  adversities  of  men. 
In  the  language  of  another,  "  There  were  few 
men  of  greater  personal  excellence.  We  never 
shall  forget  the  delightful  social  simplicities  of 
his  nature,  the  genial  goodness  which  uttered  it- 
self in  every  word,  the  cheerful  quietness  of  his 
unruffled  spirit.  Fully  Christian  in  feeling  and 
faith,  there  was  thrown  over  his  whole  character 
the  permanent  freshness  of  a  purity  the  world 
had  not  soiled,  and  which  bigotry  could  not 
blacken."^ 

He  was  a  man  of  true  Christian  independ- 
ence. The  servant  of  Jesus,  he  knew  he  was, 
and  the  servant  of  men  for  Jesus'  sake ;  but  he 
knew,  too,  that  he  had  rights,  and  these  he  nev- 
er yielded.  Nothing  was  more  agreeable  to  him 
than  to  sit  at  Jesus'  feet  and  learn  ;  but  when 
he  had  learned  what  is  Christian  truth,  he  had 
the  noble  independence  to  declare  it.  He  kept 
nothing  back.  How  the  declaration  of  an  opin- 
ion would  affect  his  popularity,  was  a  question 
he  never  asked.  He  had  an  unbounded  and  un- 
conquerable   love    of  truth.      It   could    not    be 


*Rev.  T.  P.  AbcU,  in  Trumpet,  vol.  xxiv  ,  p.  174. 


222  MEMOIR    OF 

quenched.  Like  a  volcanic  mountain,  it  would 
have  utterance,  even  though  convulsions  of  so- 
ciety were  the  result.  Out  of  this  love  of  truth, 
grew  his  reverence  for  the  Bible,  the  highest  of 
all  truth.  This  blessed  book  he  ever  regarded 
as  the  word  of  God.  It  was  to  him  the  fountain 
of  life ;  the  source  of  divine  knowledge ;  the 
moral  standard,  or  test,  by  which  all  doctrines 
must  be  tried.  All  systems  of  philosophy,  how 
sacred  soever  in  the  eyes  of  men,  were  second- 
ary in  his  sight,  compared  with  the  Bible.  His 
first  question  was,  in  regard  to  all  matters  of  ju- 
risprudence, ethics,  or  doctrine,  "  What  saith  the 
Scriptures?"  He  venerated  Prof.  Stuart  to  the 
last,  because  he  had  done  so  much  to  introduce 
proper  rules  of  Biblical  interpretation  among  his 
religioTis  brethren. 

There  have  been  few  such  men  as  Walter 
Balfour.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than  that 
he  should  become  a  Universalist,  after  Prof.  Stu- 
art (unwittingly  on  his  own  part)  had  put  him 
upon  the  train  of  inquiry.  It  is  among  men  of 
this  class,  in  which  we  may  place  not  only  Bal- 
four, but  Murray,  Winchester,  the  early  Street- 
ers,  Barnes,  Ballou,  and  many  others — all  at  first 
of  the  partialist  faith — it  is  among  such  that  Uni- 
versalisra  makes  its  most  eminent  triumphs. 


REV.    WALTER     BALFOUR.  ^23 

Concerning  those  who  have   de-      inaaenco 

.  of  the  good 

parted  this  hfe,  it  is  the  custom  to  ^'ter  their  death, 
say,  they  are  dead.  But  in  what  sense  are  they 
dead  ?  Their  bodies  indeed  are  not  present  with 
us  any  miie  ;  but  do  not  all  men  live  unto  God  ? 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  were  not  present 
on  the  earth,  in  the  days  of  Christ ;  but  they 
were  not  dead  ;  for  God  was  their  God,  and  he 
"  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living." 
In  this  sense  men  live  on,  after  their  bodies  re- 
turn to  the  dust.  They  survive  the  dissolution 
of  their  bodies  also,  in  the  influence  their  lives 
exert  after  they  are  gone.  Said  Daniel  Webster, 
in  his  discourse  on  the  deaths  of  Adams  and  Jef- 
ferson, "  How  little  is  there  of  the  great  and 
good  which  can  die.  They  live  in  all  that  per- 
petuates the  remembrance  of  men  on  earth;  in 
the  recorded  proofs  of  their  own  great  actions, 
in  the  offspring  of  their  intellect,  in  the  deep  en- 
graved lines  of  public  gratitude,  and  in  the  re- 
spect and  homage  of  mankind.  They  live  in 
their  example  ;  and  they  live  emphatically,  and 
will  live,  in  the  influence  which  their  lives  and 
efforts,  their  principles  and  opinions  exercise, 
and  will  continue  to  exercise,  on  the  affairs  ot 
men."  Thus  Walter  Balfour  still  lives,  and  will 
live.    The  effect  of  his  studies,  and  of  the  works 


224        MEMOIR  OF  REV.  WALTER    BALFOUR. 

which  he  gave  to  the  world, -cannot  soon  pass 
away.  As  we  said  in  the  preface  to  this  little 
volume,  "the  truth  that  radiated  from  him  will 
be  reflected  from  mind  to  mind ;  and  many  will 
be  enlightened  by  it,  who  may  not  be  conscious 
of  ever  having  heard  his  name."  If  it  be  pleas- 
ant to  have  the  likeness  of  a  great  and  good  man 
on  canvass,  or  in  marble,  how  much  more  so  to 
have  the  image  of  his  thoughts,  his  flaming  as- 
pirations, his  zeal  for  God.  Such  is  the  likeness 
that  is  left  to  us  of  Walter  Balfour !  and  while 
we  look  at  him  in  this  point  of  view,  may  his 
honesty,  his  love  of  truth,  his  noble  independ- 
ence, his  natural  kindness  and  benevolence — in 
a  word,  the  whole  man,  be  copied  by  us. 


A  Jk 


UCSB   LIBRARY 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


B     000  007  893     1 


